Confirmation that Jim Harbaugh = Massengill

Discuss any and all NFL-related topics and matters of interest here. RATING: PG-13
  • And Hans.....did Harbs see the benefit of Kap in the lineup over Smith? Or...maybe...and I'm not saying this is true....but did he see what was happening in D.C. with RG3 and in Seattle with Wilson......and say..."hey, wait a second, we've got a guy here thats just like that!...lets give him a shot"....was it a case of Harbs insight, or a case of its a copy cat league..or a case of Smiths shoulder injury (I think thats the injury he had) and then they schemed to Kaps strengths? Either way.....putting Kap in wasn't a trailblazing scenario....and scheming to his strengths is only the smart thing to do....it had to be obvious to them that it was working in Seattle and DC. I'm just still in the camp that, as compared to Pete and what he had to deal with when he took over, and to what Harbs took over, it is Pete that should be labeled as a great coach...and not Harbs....yet.
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • Not to harp too much on the subject...but if Harbs had been hired as the Hawks coach instead of Pete...do you think he'd be where Pete is at now? We'll never know right? But IMHO I would have to think not. And in those years...from then to now.....can you imagine the douchiness that Harbs would have shown trying to rebuild from a Mora/Ruskell team.....lol......oh boy.......lol.......
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • samwize77 wrote:I'm not sure Scottie, just how much of that is Harb. Certainly he oversees all. But it remains to be seen if any of the schemes are actually his. Is the genius in coming up with these ideas or approving them. Both have their merits for sure. Do I give credit to Gus B for our defense?..no...I think that belongs all to Pete. Do I give credit for our O to Bevel and Cable...yes...IMHO I think they are more responsible for its success than Pete. Other than the fact Pete does take the responsibility and oversees its execution. Its something of a fine line taking the responsibility for the x's and o's and the credit for coming up with them. If Harbs drew it up and the coordinators make sure its executed properly then my hats off to him...if not.....then its more the creativeness of his coordinators than his on genius. This goes for all staffs of course. But an example of what I'm talking about would be the Bears. Was it Ditkas Defensive schemes that made that team so bad or was it Buddy Ryans?.... I'm not a true hater of Harbs really.....I recognize the fact, and it is a fact.....that the niners have turned around because of him. But if I try to balance out what he really has done himself to improve that team...and his obvious douchery....do I consider him a great coach?...not a chance...yet.

    He was running those same heavy sets at Stanford. In fact, I would say when you add his college resume to his pro resume, there is no way you can say isn't a great coach. Unless you are a deluded Seattle Homer, anyway. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Point conceded Scottie.....with the caveat that Harbs went 29-21 in his years there, and it wasn't until the emergence of Luck that his fortunes changed. Was he responsible for Mr Luck? and the turnaround at Stanford? Quite possibly. He has definitely showed signs of turning programs around no doubt. I guess it just boils down to I'm just not convinced yet. Theres no doubt hes a good coach.......just not a great coach.
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • samwize77 wrote:Not to harp too much on the subject...but if Harbs had been hired as the Hawks coach instead of Pete...do you think he'd be where Pete is at now? We'll never know right? But IMHO I would have to think not. And in those years...from then to now.....can you imagine the douchiness that Harbs would have shown trying to rebuild from a Mora/Ruskell team.....lol......oh boy.......lol.......


    You bring up some great points but for the most part Harbs gets credit for those. Deservingly? Maybe, maybe not.

    To me this is a flawed question because there are way to many facets of what a coach really is. Prepping players and in game execution are at the forefront but there is alot more that goes into it than just having immediate success. Take Tomlinson for example. He won a super bowl his first year but look at the Steeler's now. They are nowhere near the power house that Tomlin took over. Is he a great coach? He has a trophy but he did take over a super bowl caliber team when he got there so the question is still out there.

    I like your last post about where would the Seahawks be if Harbaugh came here instead of Pete. Do you think he would have taken that crew to the superbowl? How about would he have won 7 games, the division and beat the defending world champs? Would he have made our team significantly better each year? Or would he implode worse than Mora and lose the team? Those questions are still unanswered.

    Pete is more to Seattle than Harbaugh is to the Niners also. There Harbaugh is the coach and that's it. Pete is in charge of all operations here. He is directly involved and deserves credit for building this team from the ground up and getting them game ready and executing in games, all of which he has done a ridiculously good job at.

    If you were to project the long term future between Pete and John, it seems pretty easy to believe Pete has a much better shot at success because you have seen him with no talent and create a team where Harbaugh walked into a playoff caliber team in desperate need of coaching and gave the team what it needed. Sure he made some changes but for the most part that team was intact. In fact all but two starters were already there from the previous year while Pete and John made 284 transactions before their first NFL snap. What each has don has been a polar opposite of the other in that regard.

    We have already seen how Pete handles the adversity of losing and lacking talent. We have also seen how he handles building a team. We have seen him reposition talent to suit their skills and coach them up. We have also seen his team is ready on game day. We have even seen him make second half adjustments that completely took over games. about the only thing left to see is can he replace lost talent when needed but even that you can extrapolate from the way he has built this team. If Pete has a downside we haven't seen it yet and based on how he started and where the team is at right now, I'm not sure he has one.

    For the most part Harbaugh in comparison hasn't even really been tested yet. Do you think he could make Tarvaris Jackson a good QB? Me Neither. We still need to see how Jimmy reacts to adversity before we can crown him as a top level coach.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3026
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • So far Jim has succeeded at every place he's been a head coach. The only question I have is whether he can sustain that; he's never stayed more than a few years at any of those previous jobs because he deservedly moved up the career ladder. We won't know until/unless he stays in San Francisco for several more years. He might be brilliant at it, his team could crash and burn or they may simply follow a more typical up and down pattern.

    Pete has mentioned more than once that it's harder to maintain success than reach it. Overall he did pretty well with that at USC, though the team had degraded in overall quality the last 2-3 years he was there. Some of that is due to the Reggie Bush circus hanging over the team (and being used by other schools in negative recruiting). Some was due to coaching attrition in the assistant ranks. And some was...who knows? John McKay won four national championships at USC and still had years when the team sucked. That's football.

    Any way, I do think Harbaugh is a good coach, in spite of his off-putting personality. We'll have to wait and see how both he and Pete fare in the longer term.
    Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
    http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com
    User avatar
    sc85sis
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4943
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
    Location: Southern CA


  • samwize77 wrote:I'm not sure Scottie, just how much of that is Harb. Certainly he oversees all. But it remains to be seen if any of the schemes are actually his. Is the genius in coming up with these ideas or approving them. Both have their merits for sure. Do I give credit to Gus B for our defense?..no...I think that belongs all to Pete. Do I give credit for our O to Bevel and Cable...yes...IMHO I think they are more responsible for its success than Pete. Other than the fact Pete does take the responsibility and oversees its execution. Its something of a fine line taking the responsibility for the x's and o's and the credit for coming up with them. If Harbs drew it up and the coordinators make sure its executed properly then my hats off to him...if not.....then its more the creativeness of his coordinators than his on genius. This goes for all staffs of course. But an example of what I'm talking about would be the Bears. Was it Ditkas Defensive schemes that made that team so bad or was it Buddy Ryans?.... I'm not a true hater of Harbs really.....I recognize the fact, and it is a fact.....that the niners have turned around because of him. But if I try to balance out what he really has done himself to improve that team...and his obvious douchery....do I consider him a great coach?...not a chance...yet.


    Buddy Ryan obviously but both Harbaugh and Carroll have enjoyed immense success with multiple teams. At the very least, you have to give the head coach credit for hiring awesome staff. So I don't think it's so black and white. I've never considered Ditka a great coach because he sucked without Buddy Ryan. The 85 Bears were the one hit of Ditka's career.

    Carroll and Harbaugh have both developed winning programs with multiple different coaching staff. They're both great coaches. Ditka was never at that level.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2255
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Well gentlemen, I guess is comes down to what your definition of what "great" means. Hell, by my definition I shouldn't put Pete into that category yet...but forgive me my homerism if I do.

    Theres probably hundreds of coaches out there right now turning programs around...on the high school, college and pro levels......do we call each of them a "great" coach at their level?

    Pete has proved..or at least is on the verge of proving...that a successful college coach can transition into the pros and have success there also.....and Harbs is also on the same road. BUT Harbs obviously had a much easier task with the personnel he had to work with. Hence, he actually has gone further than Pete in a shorter amount of time. They both are a rarity in their successes so far.

    Time will tell us more here. And if Harbs and the Niners continue their winning ways (I'm almost ready to throw up alittle writing that) then I'll give credit where credit is due, and elevate him from a "good" coach to a "great" one.

    But, of course..Pete is a GREAT coach now.....lol...and Harbs is still a douche ;)
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • samwize77 wrote:Well gentlemen, I guess is comes down to what your definition of what "great" means. Hell, by my definition I shouldn't put Pete into that category yet...but forgive me my homerism if I do.

    Theres probably hundreds of coaches out there right now turning programs around...on the high school, college and pro levels......do we call each of them a "great" coach at their level?

    Pete has proved..or at least is on the verge of proving...that a successful college coach can transition into the pros and have success there also.....and Harbs is also on the same road. BUT Harbs obviously had a much easier task with the personnel he had to work with. Hence, he actually has gone further than Pete in a shorter amount of time. They both are a rarity in their successes so far.

    Time will tell us more here. And if Harbs and the Niners continue their winning ways (I'm almost ready to throw up alittle writing that) then I'll give credit where credit is due, and elevate him from a "good" coach to a "great" one.

    But, of course..Pete is a GREAT coach now.....lol...and Harbs is still a douche ;)

    parsing words between what good and great mean is pointless. A coach can either outwit the opposition while inspiring his players to maximize their talent or he can't. He can have them prepared or he can't. Harbs does all 3 from what I can see.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    samwize77 wrote:Well gentlemen, I guess is comes down to what your definition of what "great" means. Hell, by my definition I shouldn't put Pete into that category yet...but forgive me my homerism if I do.

    Theres probably hundreds of coaches out there right now turning programs around...on the high school, college and pro levels......do we call each of them a "great" coach at their level?

    Pete has proved..or at least is on the verge of proving...that a successful college coach can transition into the pros and have success there also.....and Harbs is also on the same road. BUT Harbs obviously had a much easier task with the personnel he had to work with. Hence, he actually has gone further than Pete in a shorter amount of time. They both are a rarity in their successes so far.

    Time will tell us more here. And if Harbs and the Niners continue their winning ways (I'm almost ready to throw up alittle writing that) then I'll give credit where credit is due, and elevate him from a "good" coach to a "great" one.

    But, of course..Pete is a GREAT coach now.....lol...and Harbs is still a douche ;)

    parsing words between what good and great mean is pointless. A coach can either outwit the opposition while inspiring his players to maximize their talent or he can't. He can have them prepared or he can't. Harbs does all 3 from what I can see.


    But where does he stand at developing talent? Great job with the QB's but Jenkins and last years entire draft class are a huge question mark.
    The Lion has no interest in the opinion of the sheep.
    RichNhansom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3026
    Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:26 am


  • I agree on most points except the fact that the entire draft class being a huge question manr most of them did not even need to start. Jenkins was a fail last year, but the RB Lames has not been a disapointment at all. There have been evidence of player development. Just look at Smith he was according to all draft analysts a HUGE reach but with the correct teaching he came along. Then theres Miller, He was defence. Now he is a FB. Yes Pete has shown this also. I think that it shows more because of the good drafting and more need at certain positions. Lets see how he develops players now that his roster is nice and talented.
    User avatar
    rlkats
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 693
    Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 7:42 pm


  • Of course the definition of what good and great might imply in this discussion IS very relevant. Forgetting what traits a coach must posses to make this distinction....I'll just give you an example of what I'm speaking about. Lombardi.....Shula.....Laundry....Knoll......Walsh....in my book these guys are "great" coaches. Each in his own way brought his team(s) to greatness. They didn't achieve it in the same ways either. Each had his own set of talents that consistently brought a winning tradition to their organizations. They certainly stand out right? Then theres coaches like Coughlin, Belichek, and Tomlin......these guys are good coaches on their way to greatness (if not already there in some eyes).........again...each of these coaches have their own way of coaching. Then theres all the good coaches.......guys that have done very well but certainly haven't separated themselves from the pack yet..and theres to many of these to list here.
    So, to me, to just label a coach great, just because he has had some success doesn't cut it....this I would think goes for almost all occupations. I've had success in the engineering field but I doubt that my colleagues would consider me great though......lol.......thats all I'm saying.
    Now, in our own little .net ecosystem.....you Scottie, have achieved greatness...you, Kip, English and a few others (yes, that includes you Les :)........ when you folks post... people...including me..take notice because your posts stand out above the others. For many reasons!......lol.....
    We probably just should agree to differ on this.......
    .....but we probably should/can agree that Harbs is still a douche!! (just to stay on-topic with the OP :)

    ......oh.....and Pete is a GREAT coach (as I show my true Homerism/Hypocritical colors)
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • BTW Scottie...I've always enjoyed your avatars....is there a new one in the pipeline?
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • Sam, chill with the ellipses bro. LOL

    As to greatness, anyone who can instantly turn teams into championship contenders at multiple levels (college then pros) is great in my mind. How many can you think of? Before Harbaugh and Carroll that list would have been 3 or less.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2255
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • HansGruber wrote:Sam, chill with the ellipses bro. LOL

    As to greatness, anyone who can instantly turn teams into championship contenders at multiple levels (college then pros) is great in my mind. How many can you think of? Before Harbaugh and Carroll that list would have been 3 or less.


    ......but ......how...will...I...ever..get my...point......across? (Imagine Captain Kirks halting voice) :) lol

    Okay, I guess my idea of greatness is maybe to literal. But I can now be assured that Harbs is, at the least, a GREAT douche also. Will there ever be a Douche HOF? If there is, he's certainly a first ballot inductee.
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • samwize77 wrote:Point conceded Scottie.....with the caveat that Harbs went 29-21 in his years there, and it wasn't until the emergence of Luck that his fortunes changed. Was he responsible for Mr Luck? and the turnaround at Stanford? Quite possibly. He has definitely showed signs of turning programs around no doubt. I guess it just boils down to I'm just not convinced yet. Theres no doubt hes a good coach.......just not a great coach.


    Doesn't the exact same thing apply to Carroll? He had a losing record in his first 2 1/2 seasons as the Seahawks head coach before Wilson developed and took control in the second half of last season. If the Hawks hadn't drafted Wilson how would last season and the future look? Granted, Flynn is getting glowing reviews at Raiders camp such as:

    According to Vic Tafur of The San Francisco Chronicle, two straight downfield throws from Flynn that were described as “wounded ducks” were the highlights of the day. Barely any throws were completed downfield and several passes were batted down at the line of scrimmage.


    In your opinion where would the Seahawks and Carroll be right now if Flynn or Tarvaris Jackson were the starter heading into the season and Wilson was drafted by another team?
    User avatar
    Disp
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 171
    Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:43 pm


  • Disp wrote:
    Doesn't the exact same thing apply to Carroll? He had a losing record in his first 2 1/2 seasons as the Seahawks head coach before Wilson developed and took control in the second half of last season.



    The difference to me is that Pete rebuilt our team from scratch, and turned us into a competitor in record time. Schneider obviously helped, but ultimately Pete has the final say in things.

    Sure we were 7-9 two years in a row before Wilson but go and ask a non-biased Bills or Browns fan which coach is better. I bet they would say the coach that envisions the recipe, helps buy the groceries AND cooks the meal is the one to have (I miss Bill Parcells sometimes).
    _________________
    "I can deal with Kap looking/acting like a douchebag so long as he wins. You can't be a douche AND a loser, Kap. Get your ---- together, a-hole."

    .....................................................................................-Webzone Niner fan GhostOfJimmyDean
    User avatar
    Trenchbroom
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1917
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:47 am
    Location: Spokangeles


  • Despite everything that has been posted in this thread, what does it matter?

    The guy just flat out is a great coach that obviously knows how to win.

    I'd rather have Harbaugh with all of his antics, than have a coach that ends up sitting on the couch with the rest of his teams fans deep in the post season.
    DISCLAIMER:

    The trash talking that I do occasionally this week is strictly for gamesmanship between opposing fanbases as a result of our upcoming matchup this week on SNF. It by no means should be taken personally.
    User avatar
    NinerLifer
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 690
    Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:30 pm


  • Disp wrote:Doesn't the exact same thing apply to Carroll? He had a losing record in his first 2 1/2 seasons as the Seahawks head coach before Wilson developed and took control in the second half of last season. If the Hawks hadn't drafted Wilson how would last season and the future look?


    Well, we declined in talent every year following our Super Bowl, and a confirmed very high-end coach in Mike Holmgren finished 4-12 his final year here. (One of only five coaches to ever take two different teams to the Super Bowl. None have won with two teams.) Carroll had to blow up our roster and start from scratch. We had a total of 284 roster transactions in his first year here. 284. I can't find if that's a record for an NFL team or not, but I'm guessing it is.

    Also, we had a losing record for one week in 2013, that's hardly Carroll having a losing record for half of the season. We never went below .500 after our opening-week loss to the Cardinals.

    I would say that Carroll has definitely proven more in the NFL than Harbaugh has despite him not reaching the Super Bowl yet. Harbaugh came to a team loaded with talented players, and 49ers fans really downplay what an advantage that is. It kind of reminds me of a roommate I used to have, his parents paid for 100% of everything including spare spending cash after high school while he went to college, and when he graduated, he had about $15,000 leftover money and no debt/expenses of any kind, and as a graduation present, they bought him a brand-new car to boot. Starting adult life after school with $15k cash, a brand-new car, and no debt of any kind is a pretty nice starting position to have, especially since you never had to work a job at all throughout college, so you could focus on school. In this metaphor, Carroll came to the Seahawks and started with a falling-down house that needed to be bulldozed, and a budget to buy a new one that would take five years, but he managed to create a contending team in 3 years/drafts.

    It remains to be seen which coach can go farther with a very talented overall roster, because we've only now reached that, but Carroll has damned sure proven a lot more than Harbaugh about being an overall head coach. Harbaugh hasn't had to play world-builder. Now, it's not Harbaugh's fault that he walked into a very cushy gig (for previously being a perennial losing team, that is) in terms of this discussion; but considering the major differences in these two situations, and all the talent Carroll and Schneider have found OUTSIDE the top couple of draft rounds, you can see why most of us roll our eyes whenever someone says Harbaugh's a better coach than Carroll. The list of things Harbaugh has had to do thus far is considerably smaller than the list of things Carroll has had to do, and as of now, has done extremely well. Nobody knows how Harbaugh would have done if he had been hired by the Seahawks when Carroll was. Maybe the same, maybe even better, maybe worse; but it's hard to imagine a better rise to prominence from being a talentless joke of a team like we were in Holmgren's final year and Mora's only year.

    So, all of that being said, don't be annoyed if most of us consider Carroll to be the better coach.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • According to most of you guys on here, you have the most talented roster than you guys have had in like ever. Does that mean that if Pete doesn't coach your team into the SB that you will be calling for his head the next off-season? You guys claim that Harbs inherited a great team that just needed a good coach to take it somewhere, which might very well be true as I am not arguing that. But after all this re-building that you give PC credit for, if he doesn't take you guys to the SB this year...what does it matter?

    No matter what a coach does during the off-season or even during the duration of a season, none of it matters unless you have something to show for all of it in the end of that season. Of course there are different opinions on what is good enough to be qualified as "something", but I think we can all agree that achieving more than the rest of your conference is deffinately "something" that every team shoots for.

    Anything less than that is just a Brownie Button in comparison.
    DISCLAIMER:

    The trash talking that I do occasionally this week is strictly for gamesmanship between opposing fanbases as a result of our upcoming matchup this week on SNF. It by no means should be taken personally.
    User avatar
    NinerLifer
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 690
    Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:30 pm


  • Carroll's 3rd year of team-building resulted in the greatest season for a rookie QB ever, and our team is incredibly young overall. While we all hope to reach the Super Bowl this year, if we don't, nobody will be calling for Carroll's head. The few morons that might will get drowned out by the masses.

    Also, yes, I did just say greatest season for a rookie QB ever. Show me a rookie QB that went 11-5 or better (.687 win % for pre-16-game season eras) with a road playoff win and 26+ TDs with a better-than-2-1 TD-int ratio if you want to refute it.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • I would think Pete has a wide margin of lee-way here. Would we be disappointed with a 9-7 season?...sure, of course. Would there be people calling for his job? Of course, but probably very few.
    Something would have to go terribly wrong for that to happen. That something would almost assuredly have to be injuries, something Pete doesn't have much control over.
    Roland makes a great analogy here with the college kid. Pretty much sums it up...but I have to add to it Pete didn't do it in a conventional manner either. Moving Red to end,finding talent where few others look and changing the idea of what a cb should be. He has his own vision and knows how to make it work.
    I've never argued that Harbs wasn't a good coach, for me, I just don't think he's a great coach, but thats just me. And at this point I'd much much much rather have Pete at the helm than Harbs, for about every reason I can think of. Especially professionalism!
    I would also have to think, and its only my opinion, that if BOTH teams meltdown, Harbs head would be on the chopping block before Petes. Jimmays head would certainly be closer to exploding for sure..lol
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • Trenchbroom wrote:The difference to me is that Pete rebuilt our team from scratch, and turned us into a competitor in record time. Schneider obviously helped, but ultimately Pete has the final say in things.

    Sure we were 7-9 two years in a row before Wilson but go and ask a non-biased Bills or Browns fan which coach is better. I bet they would say the coach that envisions the recipe, helps buy the groceries AND cooks the meal is the one to have (I miss Bill Parcells sometimes).


    Carroll and Schneider have done a fine job building a talented team. My response was directed to the guy saying Harbaugh didn't have a lot of success at Stanford until he got a great quarterback in Andrew Luck, and because of that he doesn't believe he's a great head coach. Wilson was clutch as hell when it mattered in a few games last season. Is it unrealistic to say that the Hawks don't win a few of the games they did last season without his clutch play? Do they win the games vs. the Packers, Bears, and Patriots with any of the lesser quaterbacks on the roster like Matt Flynn? Because if Matt Flynn can't come through in the clutch like Wilson did in those 3 games, then the Hawks finish the season at 8-8 or worse. Is Carroll still a great coach if the Seahawks never draft Wilson and end up going 7-9, 7-9, and then 8-8?
    User avatar
    Disp
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 171
    Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:43 pm


  • Disp wrote:
    Trenchbroom wrote:The difference to me is that Pete rebuilt our team from scratch, and turned us into a competitor in record time. Schneider obviously helped, but ultimately Pete has the final say in things.

    Sure we were 7-9 two years in a row before Wilson but go and ask a non-biased Bills or Browns fan which coach is better. I bet they would say the coach that envisions the recipe, helps buy the groceries AND cooks the meal is the one to have (I miss Bill Parcells sometimes).


    Carroll and Schneider have done a fine job building a talented team. My response was directed to the guy saying Harbaugh didn't have a lot of success at Stanford until he got a great quarterback in Andrew Luck, and because of that he doesn't believe he's a great head coach. Wilson was clutch as hell when it mattered in a few games last season. Is it unrealistic to say that the Hawks don't win a few of the games they did last season without his clutch play? Do they win the games vs. the Packers, Bears, and Patriots with any of the lesser quaterbacks on the roster like Matt Flynn? Because if Matt Flynn can't come through in the clutch like Wilson did in those 3 games, then the Hawks finish the season at 8-8 or worse. Is Carroll still a great coach if the Seahawks go 7-9, 7-9, and then 8-8?


    I love Pete Carroll (the visionary more than the coach), and if Flynn starts all 16 games last year I think the conversation Seattle fans are having this year is should Pete be allowed to finish his 5 year deal. So yeah, Disp, you are right. Though I would venture that most great coaches have had great quarterbacks. However, they empowered those QBs. So yeah, coaches rightly get the credit. Most media faces roasted Pete for the QB competition last year. It took big balls to start the 3rd round rookie over the money contract guy, and a few games into the season after the Rams loss those same dolts were spouting I told you so like crazy. It took big coaching balls to start the rook and stick with him. Just like it took big balls for Harbs to bench Smith.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Disp, we can play that game all day, the "what if?" game. You guys had two wins by two points or less in 2011, and another two wins by 3-6 points. One last-minute TD in those 4 games and you're 9-7. Last year, if the officials hadn't called that highly questionable delay-of-game penalty on the field goal attempt at the end against the Rams, they'd have won in overtime; and you had another two games decided by 7 points or less. What if those 3 had swung a little differently, and Harbaugh's first two seasons were 9-7 then 8-8?

    The "what if?" game is just pointless arguing.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • Scottemojo wrote:Just like it took big balls for Harbs to bench Smith.


    It did? Only people that know nothing about football thought Smith was as good of a QB as his stats suggested. A simple offense that never went deep let Smith have highly inflated numbers. I think you're considerably overstating the gumption it took to start Kaepernick. Hell, Harbaugh didn't even "start" him over Smith, Smith got injured and Kaepernick was put in and Smith never got back in.

    How in the world do you equate that to taking a lot of balls on Harbaugh's part?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • There still seems to be a misunderstanding here as far as my idea of what a great couch is. Again...Lombardi, Shula, Walsh,Knoll and others are what I consider a great coach to be. Harbs is a good coach in my eyes. Same as Pete. I only say Pete is a great coach because I'm a homer. I do however stand behind my thinking that Pete IS a better coach. I could take the time to say why, but thats probably not necessary because its been said already over and over again.
    If you're somewhat bothered by the fact that won't say Harbs is a great couch....I won't apologize for it. I don't think he is. If you are going to tie Petes success with Wilson...then lets tie Harbs with Luck. 2 losing seasons until he started Luck...is he still a great coach then? My friend, its an argument we can go round and round with but lets not. Most on this site already disagrees with me for thinking Petes not a great coach, yet. Lets get some rings and I'll be the first to carry that banner.
    edit: I'm directing this post at the niners fan, my .net friends :)
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Carroll's 3rd year of team-building resulted in the greatest season for a rookie QB ever, and our team is incredibly young overall. While we all hope to reach the Super Bowl this year, if we don't, nobody will be calling for Carroll's head. The few morons that might will get drowned out by the masses.

    Also, yes, I did just say greatest season for a rookie QB ever. Show me a rookie QB that went 11-5 or better (.687 win % for pre-16-game season eras) with a road playoff win and 26+ TDs with a better-than-2-1 TD-int ratio if you want to refute it.



    No doubt RW had a fantastic season and one of best for rookies, but I don't think the W-L record is a main factor.

    Old article from last year:

    http://seattletimes.com/html/seahawksblog/2019835750_rookieqbrecords.html

    Old, old article from 2004. Marino & Manning were outstanding rookies:

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=list/rookieqbs

    Of course, the league was different back then.
    And this post is not directed at anyone personally.
    User avatar
    DTexHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4161
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am


  • Boy, this thread would have been alot shorter if we'd stayed on topic. Not much to argue there huh? :)
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Just like it took big balls for Harbs to bench Smith.


    It did? Only people that know nothing about football thought Smith was as good of a QB as his stats suggested. A simple offense that never went deep let Smith have highly inflated numbers. I think you're considerably overstating the gumption it took to start Kaepernick. Hell, Harbaugh didn't even "start" him over Smith, Smith got injured and Kaepernick was put in and Smith never got back in.

    How in the world do you equate that to taking a lot of balls on Harbaugh's part?


    Roland why do you constantly go so far out of your way to act simple minded just to spite a rival team? The coaching staff had doubts about Kaepernick ever developing into a starting caliber QB because he was so erratic in practice, let alone replacing a quarterback with the ridiculous efficiency Smith had to that point. Smith was in the top 3 in completion %, YPA, and rating when he was injured. If you're implying they could just plug anyone into that system and have that same success, then Harbaugh and Roman are actually significantly better than they get credit for. You don't have to like the team or coaches, but only people who know nothing about football would say that move didn't take balls, just like the move to start Wilson over Flynn.

    samwize77 wrote:Harbs is a good coach in my eyes. Same as Pete. I only say Pete is a great coach because I'm a homer. I do however stand behind my thinking that Pete IS a better coach. I could take the time to say why, but thats probably not necessary because its been said already over and over again.
    If you're somewhat bothered by the fact that won't say Harbs is a great couch....I won't apologize for it.


    I'm not bothered by it at all. I was just drawing attention to your point about Harbaugh not truly having a great season until Luck was on the Stanford team. Regardless of the other talent on the roster, the Seahawks probably would have been a .500 team or worse last year without the great quarterback they drafted. Great quarterbacks are just as important to a coach's legacy as the coach is to a great QB.
    User avatar
    Disp
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 171
    Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:43 pm


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Just like it took big balls for Harbs to bench Smith.


    It did? Only people that know nothing about football thought Smith was as good of a QB as his stats suggested. A simple offense that never went deep let Smith have highly inflated numbers. I think you're considerably overstating the gumption it took to start Kaepernick. Hell, Harbaugh didn't even "start" him over Smith, Smith got injured and Kaepernick was put in and Smith never got back in.

    How in the world do you equate that to taking a lot of balls on Harbaugh's part?


    Because Alex had only had a couple of bad games all year. He had just gone 19 for 20 passing in a game. He was one of the leaders in passer rating, and was averaging almost 8 yards a pass. I agree, the numbers were inflated a bit, but Alex was playing pretty good. I don't think most coaches would have had the sac to keep Alex on the sidelines. Alex was ready to play two weeks after the injury, and Harbs handled the media part of the decision with no class or grace, but it was a gutsy decision. They got within a bad special teams play of going to the SB in 2011 with Smith, it isn't like he sucks.

    Sticing with the guy who has no starting experience for a playoff run was ballsy.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Not sure what to think about Smith but I guess I will see up close and personal this year. If he is successful this year there's no question that he's a top flight quarterback because Kansas City is no San Francisco.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7830
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


  • I don't know about a "ballsy" move, but it certainly wasn't a no-brainer either. It pretty much changed how they were going to run their offense. That wasn't an easy decision to make for sure. But it wasn't without its upside. Harbs saw what was happening elsewhere for sure. He also knew he could go downfield with Kap. Can a calculated risk be called ballsy? If so, yeah, then maybe it was ballsy.
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • The thing here in regards to Pete starting Wilson over Flynn, and Harbs staying with Kap over Smith is that with Kap, Harbs had a chance(no real choice really) to see how Kap would do in a real game scenario. And while Smith was getting better Kap showed he was up to the challenge. With Pete, he had to make his decision with basically unknowns. Petes move was the riskiest of the 2 teams.
    In the end the decision each coach made was probably for the same reason. To much upside to ignore.
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • DTexHawk wrote:No doubt RW had a fantastic season and one of best for rookies, but I don't think the W-L record is a main factor.

    I'd agree with that, and Roethlisberger is the other end of the debate as far as rookie years go, even though he played 14 games in his rookie year and did not start the season in his rookie year, Rich Glennon did. Roethlisberger also had 98 fewer passing attempts than Wilson. 295. Like, a historically low rookie passing attempt number in the modern era for a QB playing 14 games. They had a sick defense and run game.

    Disp wrote:Roland why do you constantly go so far out of your way to act simple minded just to spite a rival team? The coaching staff had doubts about Kaepernick ever developing into a starting caliber QB because he was so erratic in practice, let alone replacing a quarterback with the ridiculous efficiency Smith had to that point. Smith was in the top 3 in completion %, YPA, and rating when he was injured. If you're implying they could just plug anyone into that system and have that same success, then Harbaugh and Roman are actually significantly better than they get credit for. You don't have to like the team or coaches, but only people who know nothing about football would say that move didn't take balls, just like the move to start Wilson over Flynn.

    Wait, adding a reply that took all of 30 seconds to type is "going out of my way"? How do you figure? Also, what I said is true. Harbaugh never even made Kaepernick a starter, Kaepernick started games because Smith got injured, and Harbaugh kept him in after Kaepernick looked good for his first two starts. Where's the big-balls risk here? What, it was risky making a career average QB who only looked better than that once you had a stupid-simple offense that only worked because of a great defense and a powerful running game lose his job due to injury?

    Seriously, I want to see someone explain, in detail, how it was risky. Scotte, you say he was blunt with the media about not bringing Smith back; so what? Harbaugh has always been media-unfriendly in San Francisco. What'd you expect him to say to the press once he started getting asked about it? "I'm tired of keeping half of the playbook on a shelf gathering dust because that's all Smith can handle"? No, saying that would have taken balls. I'd actually have given Harbaugh major props if he had found a way to say something like that. In other words, the truth. Don't misunderstand me, I don't fault him for not saying that, it's just that I can't fathom why anyone considers it a ballsy move for Harbaugh to not have put Smith back in. It was absolutely the right move for the team. He did the right thing. The only thing was, it wasn't a ballsy thing. He was handed an excuse on a silver platter; Smith got injured and had to be out two games, and Kaepernick was the new young guy and he looked good in the two starts. What more could you ask for if you wanted to transition QBs mid-season?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • I didn't say he was blunt, I said Harbs had no class or grace in the way he handled the starter question. Harbs sounded like a stuttering autistic kid every time he was asked anything about who would start.

    Ok, so if you think he lacked scrote in KEEPING Kaepernick the starter, how much fortitude did it take to have Kaepernick throwing all over the place in his first start against the Bears stellar secondary?
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Disp wrote:Carroll and Schneider have done a fine job building a talented team. My response was directed to the guy saying Harbaugh didn't have a lot of success at Stanford until he got a great quarterback in Andrew Luck, and because of that he doesn't believe he's a great head coach. Wilson was clutch as hell when it mattered in a few games last season. Is it unrealistic to say that the Hawks don't win a few of the games they did last season without his clutch play? Do they win the games vs. the Packers, Bears, and Patriots with any of the lesser quaterbacks on the roster like Matt Flynn? Because if Matt Flynn can't come through in the clutch like Wilson did in those 3 games, then the Hawks finish the season at 8-8 or worse. Is Carroll still a great coach if the Seahawks never draft Wilson and end up going 7-9, 7-9, and then 8-8?


    Sorry, but that's a stupid question. Carroll and Schneider planned to draft Wilson all along. They almost drafted him in the second round. So it's extremely pointless and rather dumb to ask what happens if they don't draft him. They're still smart, because they still wanted to draft arguably the best rookie QB in the NFL last season when every other team, including SF, didn't.

    Also your statement assumes Flynn was the plan at starter, and Wilson was just a lucky fluke of a late-round pick. Which couldn't be further from the truth.

    Pete Carroll and John Schneider repeatedly told the media that Matt Flynn wasn't hired as a starter and wasn't the official starter. That it would be decided in training camp. Then they went out and drafted the guy they'd been wanting badly for months - Russell Wilson. Again, they told the media Wilson was in competition as well (and were heavily criticized for that, even by the Seattle media). So the plan all along was to have multiple options at QB, and let them duke it out. You're taking credit away from them for a plan working out exactly as they intended.

    The same thing happened in SF with Kaepernick. Harbaugh went into the season with Smith as the starter, with a ton of media criticism about that. Everyone was criticizing the Kaepernick pick as well. Then Smith proceeds to have his best season ever, and put SF on a winning spree. When he was injured, Kaep came in, played well, and Harbaugh decided to go with "the hot hand". So your argument would be like asking a 49ers fan what would happen if Smith failed and the 49ers failed to make the playoffs. That didn't happen because Coach Harbaugh planned for just that scenario. That's what makes him a great coach.

    One of the biggest joys for me as a Seahawks fan is realizing that we are now seeing a legendary matchup between two great football minds in this rivalry. It's like having Parcells and Shula coaching against each other in the same division. It's gonna be a lot of fun to watch.
    User avatar
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2255
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


  • Scottemojo wrote:Ok, so if you think he lacked scrote in KEEPING Kaepernick the starter, how much fortitude did it take to have Kaepernick throwing all over the place in his first start against the Bears stellar secondary?


    I'd have to watch the game to answer this for sure. Looking at the quick stats from that game, though, Kaepernick was 16 of 23. Since when is 23 passing attempts "throwing all over the place"? I just watched the highlights from that game, and there was exactly one deep pass in it. I have NFL Game Rewind if you want to tell me where to look to see other deep passes in that game. Also, knowing Jason Campbell was quarterbacking the Bears that night probably didn't scare Harbaugh off much, just a thought.

    I get the feeling you're a little anxious to credit Harbaugh, Scotte.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Ok, so if you think he lacked scrote in KEEPING Kaepernick the starter, how much fortitude did it take to have Kaepernick throwing all over the place in his first start against the Bears stellar secondary?


    I'd have to watch the game to answer this for sure. Looking at the quick stats from that game, though, Kaepernick was 16 of 23. Since when is 23 passing attempts "throwing all over the place"? I just watched the highlights from that game, and there was exactly one deep pass in it. I have NFL Game Rewind if you want to tell me where to look to see other deep passes in that game. Also, knowing Jason Campbell was quarterbacking the Bears that night probably didn't scare Harbaugh off much, just a thought.

    I get the feeling you're a little anxious to credit Harbaugh, Scotte.

    You should watch it. I was surprised at the time, and the times I have watched since, just how well they attacked that secondary. A lot of midrange stuff, but at the time I had been watching a handcuffed Wilson all year and Kaepernick had way more trust placed in him immediately.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Ok, so if you think he lacked scrote in KEEPING Kaepernick the starter, how much fortitude did it take to have Kaepernick throwing all over the place in his first start against the Bears stellar secondary?


    I'd have to watch the game to answer this for sure. Looking at the quick stats from that game, though, Kaepernick was 16 of 23. Since when is 23 passing attempts "throwing all over the place"? I just watched the highlights from that game, and there was exactly one deep pass in it. I have NFL Game Rewind if you want to tell me where to look to see other deep passes in that game. Also, knowing Jason Campbell was quarterbacking the Bears that night probably didn't scare Harbaugh off much, just a thought.

    I get the feeling you're a little anxious to credit Harbaugh, Scotte.

    You should watch it. I was surprised at the time, and the times I have watched since, just how well they attacked that secondary. A lot of midrange stuff, but at the time I had been watching a handcuffed Wilson all year and Kaepernick had way more trust placed in him immediately.

    Well he should have given he was a 2nd year quarterback. NOT a rookie like the media desperately wants to paint it out like. That is a world of difference in the NFL and really any professional elite level athletic situation.
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7830
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


  • Kap went 16-23 243yds 2 tds
    Sando thought this after the game: "Colin Kaepernick was so impressive in his debut that he may remain in that spot even after Alex Smith comes back". Kinda prophetic.

    I didn't see the game, but those aren't bad numbers for a first time start of the year. I'm guessing he also was "muzzled" just a bit.

    Wilson avg about 24.5 attempts per game over the whole season. I guess you have to make up your own mind if "he was throwing all over the place". Looks pretty good to me though.
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • KCHawkGirl wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:You should watch it. I was surprised at the time, and the times I have watched since, just how well they attacked that secondary. A lot of midrange stuff, but at the time I had been watching a handcuffed Wilson all year and Kaepernick had way more trust placed in him immediately.

    Well he should have given he was a 2nd year quarterback. NOT a rookie like the media desperately wants to paint it out like. That is a world of difference in the NFL and really any professional elite level athletic situation.

    So why did Pete say last year that his conservative playbook for Wilson would have been the same for Flynn? Flynn was a 5 year player.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • samwize77 wrote:Kap went 16-23 243yds 2 tds
    Sando thought this after the game: "Colin Kaepernick was so impressive in his debut that he may remain in that spot even after Alex Smith comes back". Kinda prophetic.

    I didn't see the game, but those aren't bad numbers for a first time start of the year. I'm guessing he also was "muzzled" just a bit.

    Wilson avg about 24.5 attempts per game over the whole season. I guess you have to make up your own mind if "he was throwing all over the place". Looks pretty good to me though.

    Over 10 yards per attempt is silly numbers.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 11251
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Image
    WestcoastSteve
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1155
    Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    KCHawkGirl wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:You should watch it. I was surprised at the time, and the times I have watched since, just how well they attacked that secondary. A lot of midrange stuff, but at the time I had been watching a handcuffed Wilson all year and Kaepernick had way more trust placed in him immediately.

    Well he should have given he was a 2nd year quarterback. NOT a rookie like the media desperately wants to paint it out like. That is a world of difference in the NFL and really any professional elite level athletic situation.

    So why did Pete say last year that his conservative playbook for Wilson would have been the same for Flynn? Flynn was a 5 year player.

    Because Pete is generally conservative on offense? Or didn't see Flynn as the solution? What does that have to do with Keap? My observation about the NFL is that it is usually in the 2nd year do players make their largest jump. Also a year to study a playbook is more than enough time for a quarterback not to be handcuffed and limited unless they just don't have the talent (A. Smith).
    43-8...it's all about that action boss....
    next man up.
    User avatar
    MizzouHawkGal
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7830
    Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:46 pm
    Location: Kansas City, MO


  • Not to get to grotesques here, but I keep getting this vision of the look on Mr Douches face while dropping "the bomb" during one of his nighttime sessions with his wife! Oh my God!! I don't know if I should puke or laugh! (or put a gun to my head if the visions don't stop!!..lol
    edit: Sorry, what were we talking about?
    Oh DonkoSpurt We Hardly Knew Ye!
    User avatar
    samwize77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 913
    Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 11:43 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    KCHawkGirl wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:You should watch it. I was surprised at the time, and the times I have watched since, just how well they attacked that secondary. A lot of midrange stuff, but at the time I had been watching a handcuffed Wilson all year and Kaepernick had way more trust placed in him immediately.

    Well he should have given he was a 2nd year quarterback. NOT a rookie like the media desperately wants to paint it out like. That is a world of difference in the NFL and really any professional elite level athletic situation.

    So why did Pete say last year that his conservative playbook for Wilson would have been the same for Flynn? Flynn was a 5 year player.

    Coach speak? Perhaps his answer was to quell questions more about his approach there.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


  • NinerLifer wrote:Despite everything that has been posted in this thread, what does it matter?

    The guy just flat out is a great coach that obviously knows how to win.

    I'd rather have Harbaugh with all of his antics, than have a coach that ends up sitting on the couch with the rest of his teams fans deep in the post season.

    Well, I'll take a stab at an answer. Though I grant that Harbaugh is "quirky" (to put it nicely), I can't really get into a bashing session of relative morality. Meaning, anyone being labeled as the things being said... is being labeled from a standard - without defining what that standard is. I read a lot of "He's this and I'm not" business. That's hard to live up to. Personally, I try not to compare myself to others (though in my mind, of course I do - as we all futilely do)... even those that seem like easy targets as examples to say "I'm not like that guy." (My take: Yes, we all are equally so - at least in one key ultimate sense. Same stuff, different address. Another topic not allowed in this forum.) Having said that...
    Yes, Harbaugh is in the spotlight and has gone off in public. Too, there is a track record of him being perhaps a bit socially awkward (again, to put it nicely - as we all perhaps should. But, it's a bit more fun/folly to take jabs, I guess.) Having said all that... no matter what conclusions others want to draw about his character, character usually does end up mattering when you are leading others. I think the case has been made that it can catch up with you. That seems to be the pattern with JHb. The quirky overly-passionate characteristics can be what makes him a good coach (by the way, I thought you said one would need several years before you would call them "great" - see RW/CK thread, et al. ;) ) But, just remember... those same volatile characteristics can also quickly lead to one's fall from popularity as well. He's not winning any popularity contests outside of the team that is counting on him to lead them. I do think it's relevant to bring up how past players view him. That is a glimpse into "why it matters." Any fan would say pretty much the same thing you're saying about wanting to see your team win. The issue, though... will it be short-lived while all the "other" teams you mention could be building for more long term success with a more stable leader? JHb can obviously coach - at least come into a media favorite, underachieving team with talent already on the roster from several poor years and high draft picks... and add his fire for a time for at least short term success. We'll see how he and the organization with JHb manage or mis-manage all that.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


  • Don't forget that your keyboard has an enter key, Team. ;)
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 26416
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Kirkland, WA


  • NinerLifer wrote:According to most of you guys on here, you have the most talented roster than you guys have had in like ever. Does that mean that if Pete doesn't coach your team into the SB that you will be calling for his head the next off-season? You guys claim that Harbs inherited a great team that just needed a good coach to take it somewhere, which might very well be true as I am not arguing that. But after all this re-building that you give PC credit for, if he doesn't take you guys to the SB this year...what does it matter?

    No matter what a coach does during the off-season or even during the duration of a season, none of it matters unless you have something to show for all of it in the end of that season. Of course there are different opinions on what is good enough to be qualified as "something", but I think we can all agree that achieving more than the rest of your conference is deffinately "something" that every team shoots for.

    Anything less than that is just a Brownie Button in comparison.

    Let's see... how many logical fallacies are in this post. We've got the red-herring/poisoning the well bit. We've got sweeping generalization. "A quarrel can end a good argument" and you're quarreling, not arguing.

    Newsflash... there are some pretty good teams in the NFL and I don't think you'll find too many Seahawks fans saying we've got it in the bag. I think we all pretty much acknowledge there are several capable teams and many improving teams. There are many factors that would make it all the sweeter to win the Super Bowl this year (strength of schedule, tough division, tough road schedule, etc.) Of course the games have to be played and perhaps no one will give consideration to various factors and extra-challenges some teams face in addition to playing the games.

    Looking ahead, Seahawks fans have good reason to be excited when our favorite team is being mentioned as having as good a shot as any team this year (and any year, for that matter.) So, that matters. It matters to be in a position to have a shot. What you don't like is that the Hawks are being said to perhaps have the best shot... even over the 49ers. That's the issue here. It matters that the team is being built the right way (and not just by PC. Much credit goes to JS. Ownership... the entire organization.) It matters that Russell Wilson is a special player.

    When a team has high hopes... of course it would be disappointing to not achieve the ultimate goal. I'm sure you don't need someone to tell you that. Your act is a bit disenchanting, especially on a Seahawks fan board. If the team was looking destined for the cellar, of course all our "talk" would sound like homerism. But, that's not the case now, is it. So, it's you, buddy. You're projecting on us. You're pouting like a 3rd grader who didn't get his way. But, again... you're here along with other Niner fans to purely talk football and improve the interaction of this forum.

    (Per Roland's charge... I've attempted to use the "enter" button on occasion.)
    Last edited by TeamoftheCentury on Wed Jul 03, 2013 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NFL NATION ]




Information
cron