3 massive changes the Seattle Seahawks must make

CalgaryFan05

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
2,349
I gotta say, it's a fairly short piece - but it calls for the changes that some around here have been grumbling about.


I honestly feel like it's actually time to blow it up. This article is unkind to our position in the NFC West, and rightfully so. We been getting owned.

Feels like a bit of an end of the era here coming up. Seems/Sounds like it's time for Pete and Geno to ride off into the sunset.

And I ******* hate saying that.
 

AROS

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
18,876
Reaction score
7,444
Location
Sultan, WA
Hard to argue with any of his points. I think Lockett's contract will be restructured in the offseason. I just don't see us cutting him outright. He's a beloved player who makes plays who still looks like he has a few solid years left in him.

We HAVE been McVay and Shanahan's bitch for years now. It really is time to move on from Pete. I like him too, but it's becoming painfully obvious to any realistic fan.

I'll take a 3-14 type season next year if it means we are ready to start truly competing for a Championship again in 2025 and beyond. Sometimes you just have to blow it up and start over to get to where you want to go.

I'll forever be grateful for our Super Bowl championship, the Legion of Boom Era and all the wins during that time.

Now it's time for a new chapter, a new era.

Just remember, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,264
Reaction score
1,786
I'll take a 3-14 type season next year if it means we are ready to start truly competing for a Championship again in 2025 and beyond. Sometimes you just have to blow it up and start over to get to where you want to go.

Yes, exactly. I'll deal with some growing pains if the team seems headed in the right direction. If it's not, start over again.

Great article by the way. 100% truth in all of it.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
If we don't make the playoffs, this will really be the first off season since Paul died that we will finally see if Jody is a real owner, or just the absentee owner many think she is letting Pete run the show regardless of how successful the team is on the field.

My guess is even if the Hawks don't make the playoffs, Jody will still let Pete and John ride out their current contracts through 2025.
 

hgwellz12

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2012
Messages
7,533
Reaction score
2,526
Location
In a lofty place tanglin' with Satan over history.
Hard to argue with any of his points. I think Lockett's contract will be restructured in the offseason. I just don't see us cutting him outright. He's a beloved player who makes plays who still looks like he has a few solid years left in him.

We HAVE been McVay and Shanahan's bitch for years now. It really is time to move on from Pete. I like him too, but it's becoming painfully obvious to any realistic fan.

I'll take a 3-14 type season next year if it means we are ready to start truly competing for a Championship again in 2025 and beyond. Sometimes you just have to blow it up and start over to get to where you want to go.

I'll forever be grateful for our Super Bowl championship, the Legion of Boom Era and all the wins during that time.

Now it's time for a new chapter, a new era.

Just remember, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
I get it, Lord KNOWS I do, but doesn't it really suck feeling like you have to give so many disclaimers and/or caveats in order to keep a certain contingency of the board from tearing you apart? 😂
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
This is my belief as well. However, I am nowhere near as down on John as I am on Pete.

Honestly, it's extremely hard to evaluate Schneider independent of Pete. We really don't know how much of John's organizational and draft decisions are him, and how much Pete is involved considering we've never seen it.

So yeah, I wouldn't mind a couple years of no Pete but keep John to find out. But again, for all the people thinking something's going to happen before 2025? I just don't see it. I think Jody's perfectly happy with letting Pete run the show until then, win or lose.
 

Jerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
6,161
Reaction score
2,888
Location
Spokane, WA
Yes, exactly. I'll deal with some growing pains if the team seems headed in the right direction. If it's not, start over again.

Great article by the way. 100% truth in all of it.
Exactly. And I hate those that counter that saying " if you're tanking you're sending the wrong message blah blah"

In the NFL, you literally need a sucky season or 2 to get competitive draft compensation and free up cap room. That's what the 49ers have routinely done to build these teams. It's like a roller coaster, or a trampoline.

Just staying stuck in mediocrity hovering around 7-9 wins gets you nowhere
 

renofox

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
3,512
Location
Arizona
Exactly. And I hate those that counter that saying " if you're tanking you're sending the wrong message blah blah"

In the NFL, you literally need a sucky season or 2 to get competitive draft compensation and free up cap room. That's what the 49ers have routinely done to build these teams. It's like a roller coaster, or a trampoline.

Just staying stuck in mediocrity hovering around 7-9 wins gets you nowhere
Agreed. For going on a decade, PCJS have been constantly trading away future picks and overpaying mediocre players in free agency just to keep a high floor. The result has been a constant low ceiling.

Great for job security. Not so great for being competitive when the playoffs roll around.
 

fire_marshall_bill

Active member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
251
Reaction score
60
Location
AZ
I remember defending Pete, probably on here, less than a month ago. At the time, they were probably 6-3 or so.

The team isn't improving throughout the year. If anything, it's regressing. Getting owned by the Lambs is humiliating.

Waldron isn't the guy I thought he was. The lack of halftime adjustments is concerning. Hurt sucks. There hasn't been a really good DC in about seven years. How many playoff wins since the Super Bowl? I can think of three.

I always rated Carroll as a top ten coach, usually top five, but he's probably closer to 20th now. Barring some 4-1 or 5-0 finish, it's probably time to move on.
 
OP
OP
CalgaryFan05

CalgaryFan05

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
2,349
I get it, Lord KNOWS I do, but doesn't it really suck feeling like you have to give so many disclaimers and/or caveats in order to keep a certain contingency of the board from tearing you apart? 😂
I was wondering if I was gonna get blasted a bit too just posting it ;)
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
3,295
Reaction score
1,961
Honestly, it's extremely hard to evaluate Schneider independent of Pete. We really don't know how much of John's organizational and draft decisions are him, and how much Pete is involved considering we've never seen it.

So yeah, I wouldn't mind a couple years of no Pete but keep John to find out. But again, for all the people thinking something's going to happen before 2025? I just don't see it. I think Jody's perfectly happy with letting Pete run the show until then, win or lose.
It's harder to believe though that Pete is running some sort of dictatorship and that John and the personnel dept have little say on how the team is constructed and the moves that are made.

I would say John is at least 50% culpable for some of the headscratchers in recent years... including the JA trade, Dee Eskridge, overpaying Dremont Jones, overpaying for other players... and most recently, trading draft capital for a one-year rental. The trade wasn't horrible in a vacuum, but their thought process was that the team is just "one piece away" from being a true contender.

How wrong they were, and that speaks to their ability to self-scout. If John cannot self-scout and evaluate talent properly, this team is dead in the water.

Right now John Lynch >>> John Schneider.
 

Maelstrom787

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
11,605
Reaction score
8,973
Location
Delaware
In the NFL, you literally need a sucky season or 2 to get competitive draft compensation and free up cap room. That's what the 49ers have routinely done to build these teams. It's like a roller coaster, or a trampoline.
The Russ trade performed the function of a sucky season for us in terms of the cap and capital influx. They hit on the drafts for the most part.

And, yeah. If you're tanking, you're not only sending the wrong message, you're crapping on the integrity of the game. It doesn't work.

No self-respecting coach or organization would abide by wasting years of their players extremely finite careers, as well as the repute of their organzation, for a draft pick that has a coin flips chance of hitting at all. It's an affront to the sport.

The Chiefs got Mahomes off a BUNCH of winning years. Reid didn't tank for what he's got. The Bills only traded up 5 spots for Allen (7 from 12) and didn't have to tank for him.

The 49ers being awful for 5 straight seasons is not even close to the reason for their current success, and they weren't tanking. They just sucked. The only prize that being terrible got them was Bosa. He worth 5 years of eating putrid ass? Hardly.

The key to success in this league is building a winning organizational culture, maximizing existing talent, and drafting well. This is why there are laughingstocks that mostly stay laughingstocks until they *change the culture*. Seattle drafting poorly for 8 or 9 years was not a function of their capital, it was mostly a failure of their player evaluations.

You let losing through that door willingly, you're going to need one hell of an exterminator to get it out, and you're probably not gonna get it from your gamble on paltry draft rewards. Ask the Jets. Or the Browns. Or the Lions. Or the Falcons. Or the Jaguars. Or the Rams. Did the draft picks turn those teams around willy nilly, or did they simply have leaders that installed winning cultures when said leaders were there?

Remember when the Colts tanked for the best quarterback draft prospect in a generation? Worked out for them, didnt it? Now he's retired, and they never really challenged for a championship because they never had the right leadership. Now, the legend that Luck replaced doesn't even associate with the franchise, and he won them a Super Bowl. The literal best opportunity to tank in the history of the NFL didn't work.

Play to win. It is the bare minimum requirement for this league.

Also, this isn't directed angrily at you, Jerhawk. I just don't want to invite that opportunity to become the next Bears, or Jets, or Cardinals in. It's the most terrifying proposition to me, and it also just stands against why I love this league compared to say, NBA.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
CalgaryFan05

CalgaryFan05

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
2,349
The team isn't improving throughout the year. If anything, it's regressing. Getting owned by the Lambs is humiliating.
I was thinking about why the last few seasons, we start like gangbusters and then about 1/2 way through the season, we fall off a cliff.

I've come to the conclusion that other teams just figure out what we're doing by mid-season, we change nothing, continue with the same approach, and get owned.

Keeping it fresh, changing and unpredictable seems to be the lifeblood of success in the league now, and unfortunately we seem to have a HC who just can't adapt. And the co-ordinators follow that lead. The old days of 'lining up and out physicalling your opponent' are gone. Defenses need to scheme, not just run the old physically dominant game. He's not changing. I've just come to realize alot of this this season - and reluctantly - I love the dude - but I actually DO think it's time for him to go.

Jody's the one that's gonna decide.
 

PNW25

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
9,253
Reaction score
3,777
Honestly, it's extremely hard to evaluate Schneider independent of Pete. We really don't know how much of John's organizational and draft decisions are him, and how much Pete is involved considering we've never seen it.

So yeah, I wouldn't mind a couple years of no Pete but keep John to find out. But again, for all the people thinking something's going to happen before 2025? I just don't see it. I think Jody's perfectly happy with letting Pete run the show until then, win or lose.
I've always said the same thing. We have no idea how the inner workings work and how much autonomy John has. A leaked source said Pete overrides John and the scouting department sometimes in the past leading to some odd picks. He also seems to let John do what he wants at times. I just think we don't know so I would be on board with letting John do his own thing for a year or two to see.
 
OP
OP
CalgaryFan05

CalgaryFan05

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
2,316
Reaction score
2,349
The Russ trade performed the function of a sucky season for us in terms of the cap and capital influx. They hit on the drafts for the most part.

And, yeah. If you're tanking, you're not only sending the wrong message, you're crapping on the integrity of the game. It doesn't work.

No self-respecting coach or organization would abide by wasting years of their players extremely finite careers, as well as the repute of their organzation, for a draft pick that has a coin flips chance of hitting at all. It's an affront to the sport.

The Chiefs got Mahomes off a BUNCH of winning years. Reid didn't tank for what he's got. The Bills only traded up 5 spots for Allen (7 from 12) and didn't have to tank for him.

The 49ers being awful for 5 straight seasons is not even close to the reason for their current success, and they weren't tanking. They just sucked. The only prize that being terrible got them was Bosa. He worth 5 years of eating putrid ass? Hardly.

The key to success in this league is building a winning organizational culture, maximizing existing talent, and drafting well. This is why there are laughingstocks that mostly stay laughingstocks until they *change the culture*. Seattle drafting poorly for 8 or 9 years was not a function of their capital, it was mostly a failure of their player evaluations.

You let losing through that door willingly, you're going to need one hell of an exterminator to get it out, and you're probably not gonna get it from your gamble on paltry draft rewards. Ask the Jets. Or the Browns. Or the Lions. Or the Falcons. Or the Jaguars. Or the Rams. Did the draft picks turn those teams around willy nilly, or did they simply have leaders that installed winning cultures when said leaders were there?

Remember when the Colts tanked for the best quarterback draft prospect in a generation? Worked out for them, didnt it? Now he's retired, and they never really challenged for a championship because they never had the right leadership. Now, the legend that Luck replaced doesn't even associate with the franchise, and he won them a Super Bowl. The literal best opportunity to tank in the history of the NFL didn't work.

Play to win. It is the bare minimum requirement for this league.
Excellent points!

And everytime lately I've been on the Draft Penix!! bandwagon, I remind myself of how many draft busts there have been.

I'd like to see them deal with the cap, and blow it all up and get a good PROVEN QB. Who that is, I don't know -
 

Jerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
6,161
Reaction score
2,888
Location
Spokane, WA
The Russ trade performed the function of a sucky season for us in terms of the cap and capital influx. They hit on the drafts for the most part.

And, yeah. If you're tanking, you're not only sending the wrong message, you're crapping on the integrity of the game. It doesn't work.

No self-respecting coach or organization would abide by wasting years of their players extremely finite careers, as well as the repute of their organzation, for a draft pick that has a coin flips chance of hitting at all. It's an affront to the sport.

The Chiefs got Mahomes off a BUNCH of winning years. Reid didn't tank for what he's got. The Bills only traded up 5 spots for Allen (7 from 12) and didn't have to tank for him.

The 49ers being awful for 5 straight seasons is not even close to the reason for their current success, and they weren't tanking. They just sucked. The only prize that being terrible got them was Bosa. He worth 5 years of eating putrid ass? Hardly.

The key to success in this league is building a winning organizational culture, maximizing existing talent, and drafting well. This is why there are laughingstocks that mostly stay laughingstocks until they *change the culture*. Seattle drafting poorly for 8 or 9 years was not a function of their capital, it was mostly a failure of their player evaluations.

You let losing through that door willingly, you're going to need one hell of an exterminator to get it out, and you're probably not gonna get it from your gamble on paltry draft rewards. Ask the Jets. Or the Browns. Or the Lions. Or the Falcons. Or the Jaguars. Or the Rams. Did the draft picks turn those teams around willy nilly, or did they simply have leaders that installed winning cultures when said leaders were there?

Remember when the Colts tanked for the best quarterback draft prospect in a generation? Worked out for them, didnt it? Now he's retired, and they never really challenged for a championship because they never had the right leadership. Now, the legend that Luck replaced doesn't even associate with the franchise, and he won them a Super Bowl. The literal best opportunity to tank in the history of the NFL didn't work.

Play to win. It is the bare minimum requirement for this league.
I completely get what you're saying and I appreciate your response.

I'm trying to say there's a difference between tanking and just flat out not being competitive. I'm not saying that the guys are going to start intentionally losing. I'm saying that the front office needs to recognize that this roster isn't competitive and to stop clinging onto the past.

They tried to retool this thing and for whatever reason it's just not working out. That reason imo, in the simplest of terms, is scheme and coaching. Maybe the talent is still there to build around here.

But that Leonard Williams trade was a mistake. That's not what should've been done. It was short sighted and delusional.
 

GemCity

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2022
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
2,806
Pete is also the executive VP correct?

I’d say Pete has quite a bit more control than JS. Like…a lot.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,264
Reaction score
1,786
The Russ trade performed the function of a sucky season for us in terms of the cap and capital influx. They hit on the drafts for the most part.

And, yeah. If you're tanking, you're not only sending the wrong message, you're crapping on the integrity of the game. It doesn't work.

No self-respecting coach or organization would abide by wasting years of their players extremely finite careers, as well as the repute of their organzation, for a draft pick that has a coin flips chance of hitting at all. It's an affront to the sport.

The Chiefs got Mahomes off a BUNCH of winning years. Reid didn't tank for what he's got. The Bills only traded up 5 spots for Allen (7 from 12) and didn't have to tank for him.

The 49ers being awful for 5 straight seasons is not even close to the reason for their current success, and they weren't tanking. They just sucked. The only prize that being terrible got them was Bosa. He worth 5 years of eating putrid ass? Hardly.

The key to success in this league is building a winning organizational culture, maximizing existing talent, and drafting well. This is why there are laughingstocks that mostly stay laughingstocks until they *change the culture*. Seattle drafting poorly for 8 or 9 years was not a function of their capital, it was mostly a failure of their player evaluations.

You let losing through that door willingly, you're going to need one hell of an exterminator to get it out, and you're probably not gonna get it from your gamble on paltry draft rewards. Ask the Jets. Or the Browns. Or the Lions. Or the Falcons. Or the Jaguars. Or the Rams. Did the draft picks turn those teams around willy nilly, or did they simply have leaders that installed winning cultures when said leaders were there?

Remember when the Colts tanked for the best quarterback draft prospect in a generation? Worked out for them, didnt it? Now he's retired, and they never really challenged for a championship because they never had the right leadership. Now, the legend that Luck replaced doesn't even associate with the franchise, and he won them a Super Bowl. The literal best opportunity to tank in the history of the NFL didn't work.

Play to win. It is the bare minimum requirement for this league.

Also, this isn't directed angrily at you, Jerhawk. I just don't want to invite that opportunity to become the next Bears, or Jets, or Cardinals in. It's the most terrifying proposition to me, and it also just stands against why I love this league compared to say, NBA.

The Jags are a bad example because the draft did turn them around with Lawrence. The thing about those teams you listed is that Seattle was one of them for 40 years. Things do get changed around and its easier today due to the cap. I agree with you that no team should ever tank, but in the same breath, never be afraid for change when it's needed. I don't understand why your terrified if the change fails. You at least have to try.
 
Top