Hypothetical: Pete Retires. Who replaces him?

Who would you want to replace Pete if he were to retire?

  • Tom Cable

    Votes: 78 74.3%
  • Gus Bradley

    Votes: 18 17.1%
  • Darrell Bevell

    Votes: 9 8.6%

  • Total voters
    105

NYCoug

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
1
bestfightstory":vdfj5sb5 said:
Bravo, Kid. I gotta say; you got a bright future as a quality lurcher. Just don't let Dom/Techworlds steal all of your material.

This is the second greatest thing I've heard all day, behind the Sherman appeal verdict. I won't let the city of Seattle down! Go Hawks! #NoTimeToSleep

As far as Dom is concerned... I'm gonna have to get a registered trademark like kearly.
 

drdiags

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
10,682
Reaction score
1
Location
Kent, Washington
NYCoug":b7xn0hc3 said:
drdiags":b7xn0hc3 said:
Then again, who would be the OC to implement Cable's offense? Tough call and not looking forward to having to figure this out.

Doc, ain't it technically Cable/Bevell's offense already, with Bevell calling the plays based off of Cable's influence? Or did they ditch that this season and hand the reigns to Bevell entirely?

Was the Cable coaching up the running game and Bevell focusing on the passing game legit? Haven't heard much mention of it so far this season.

Yep, but the premise of the OP was that if Cable was made HC, the other two would leave so Cable would need to hire an OC who would implement the run game per Cable's wishes and implement the passing game that would highlight Wilson's skills.
 

NYCoug

New member
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
1,560
Reaction score
1
drdiags":3uthzltx said:
NYCoug":3uthzltx said:
drdiags":3uthzltx said:
Then again, who would be the OC to implement Cable's offense? Tough call and not looking forward to having to figure this out.

Doc, ain't it technically Cable/Bevell's offense already, with Bevell calling the plays based off of Cable's influence? Or did they ditch that this season and hand the reigns to Bevell entirely?

Was the Cable coaching up the running game and Bevell focusing on the passing game legit? Haven't heard much mention of it so far this season.

Yep, but the premise of the OP was that if Cable was made HC, the other two would leave so Cable would need to hire an OC who would implement the run game per Cable's wishes and implement the passing game that would highlight Wilson's skills.

You're right. Gotcha.

Hue Jackson? I feel he'd make a great addition.
 

Hawk Finn

New member
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
1,368
Reaction score
0
IBleedBlueAndGreen":1gph6sqq said:
Norv Turner is gonna be available.

If we were talking OC, I'd hire him in a New York minute.
 

Zebulon Dak

Banned
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
24,551
Reaction score
1,417
I can't honestly decide between those guys right now. I just don't know enough. Let's hope PC gives us at least 2-3 more years to really develop his squad of apostles.
 

pinksheets

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
3,254
Reaction score
19
Location
Seattle
Are we talking about coaching the Hawks or cuckolding Jim Harbaugh?

Honestly, it's a tough call. I instantly voted for Cable, but after reading EJ's bit on how well Bradley fits where the team is at right now, I'm torn.
 

Scottemojo

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
14,663
Reaction score
1
Kearly and myself have been informed by the Hawks we will be co-head coaches when Pete has had enough.

First order of business: Get rid of that jagoff John Schneider.
 

sc85sis

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
8,497
Reaction score
1,347
Location
Houston Suburbs
Tech Worlds":2gbi8gwt said:
SeaTown81":2gbi8gwt said:
Tech Worlds":2gbi8gwt said:
I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.
One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.
 

Tech Worlds

Active member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
11,272
Reaction score
26
Location
Granite Falls, WA
sc85sis":1zqf9rcp said:
Tech Worlds":1zqf9rcp said:
SeaTown81":1zqf9rcp said:
Tech Worlds said:
I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.
One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.

Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.
 

sc85sis

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
8,497
Reaction score
1,347
Location
Houston Suburbs
Tech Worlds":2sxz90qx said:
sc85sis":2sxz90qx said:
Tech Worlds":2sxz90qx said:
SeaTown81 said:
Tech Worlds said:
I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.
One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.

Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.
It was well known. That's one of the reasons Holt accepted the offer to go to Washington.

Edit to add: I perhaps shouldn't say that Holt never called any plays, but Pete had final say, and it was known he did a lot of the play calling on D. I have a DVD of Pete mic'ed up at the Rose Bowl, and he's calling plays throughout. Holt may also have called some, but it was definitely Pete's baby, so to speak.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,888
Reaction score
404
I don't think Pete can be replaced - merely succeeded. His personal principles are largely responsible for the team we have now. Whomever replaces him...will he need to be of similar philosophy? Or can he just coast for a few years on the team we have now?
 

seahawk2k

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
1,746
Reaction score
0
Luckily, I don't think we will have to worry about this for a while. Carroll has created a unique situation with unique talent that will be hard to replicate. I'd go young over old and Bradley over Cable.
 

Jazzhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 18, 2009
Messages
10,237
Reaction score
68
I declined to answer, as I don't see Pete retiring any time soon, and by the time he does, those guys may not even be a part of this team by then.
 

Tech Worlds

Active member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
11,272
Reaction score
26
Location
Granite Falls, WA
sc85sis":3c58nrkr said:
Tech Worlds":3c58nrkr said:
sc85sis":3c58nrkr said:
Tech Worlds said:
SeaTown81 said:
Tech Worlds said:
I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.

Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?

I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.

On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.

To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.

You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.

I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.
One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.

Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.
It was well known. That's one of the reasons Holt accepted the offer to go to Washington.

Edit to add: I perhaps shouldn't say that Holt never called any plays, but Pete had final say, and it was known he did a lot of the play calling on D. I have a DVD of Pete mic'ed up at the Rose Bowl, and he's calling plays throughout. Holt may also have called some, but it was definitely Pete's baby, so to speak.

No, I think you misunderstood. How do you know for a fact that Pete does not call the plays now, here in Seattle.

I mean, if he doesn't call the offensive plays, nor the defensive plays, just what the hell does he do on gameday? Cheer?
 

ClumsyLurk

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
0
Chip won't be available but I think his philosophy would translate to success on the offensive side of the ball.
 

JSeahawks

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
24,093
Reaction score
1
Location
Milwaukie, Oregon
Of that list i would choose Cable. But to be honest i'd rather go outside to find a coach better then any of those 3.
 

Latest posts

Top