Brandon Mebane explains Seattle’s issues

[Ozzy]

Im impressed that you keep a list of that.

I don’t, it pops up enough to make me question it.

Anyway tell me why Mebane is wrong and you’re right? Genuinely curious since you seem to take offense to the counter position.

 

[Rat]

Anyway tell me why Mebane is wrong and you’re right? Genuinely curious since you seem to take offense to the counter position.

I don't know what Mebane even said. I'm questioning a specific point brought up in the discussion about the gap in defensive talent between the Chargers and Seahawks, particularly the assertion that the former is so supremely and undeniably talented that none their dramatic improvement can be attributed to coaching, while the latter is so hopelessly untalented that nobody would have had any hope at getting anything more out of them.

Sounds like you didn't know. I'll leave the question up anyway, in case somebody who doesn't need to be told what their opinions are has any insight into it.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I don’t, it pops up enough to make me question it.

Anyway tell me why Mebane is wrong and you’re right? Genuinely curious since you seem to take offense to the counter position.

Mebane isn't wrong, but we should also be clear about his comments.

He specifically harps on the alignment and spacing being all wrong and the defense getting attacked the same way over and over with little adjustment.

That's coaching. It's very, very basic coaching.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I don’t know I haven’t studied them but it’s an entirely different team that could have different issues that affected them last year. Did they have a ton of injuries last year? Add anyone this year? I think it’s fair to ask.

I’ll make this point again. A lot of the people saying Macdonald is a massive failure are the same people who said Seattle was crazy to move on from Pete who fielded a near worst in the league defense for 3 years with a similar cast. Makes me think this has more to do with Pete being gone and still being upset about it. I could be massively wrong but that’s the vibe that comes across for some.

Mebane played in the league, I’ll take his word for it

You can make that point again, but honestly, it's not a very good point.

It just pushes everything to cartoonish extremes. Almost no one who is criticizing Mac's team so far is labeling him a "failure" 8 games in. Almost no one who is criticizing Mac is doing it because they're crying about Pete.

It is FINE to criticize obvious basic coaching failures. It doesn't mean the coach is a "failure" and only the absolute fringes are even approaching that level of negativity toward MM.

 

[Ozzy]

You can make that point again, but honestly, it's not a very good point.

It just pushes everything to cartoonish extremes. Almost no one who is criticizing Mac's team so far is labeling him a "failure" 8 games in. Almost no one who is criticizing Mac is doing it because they're crying about Pete.

It is FINE to criticize obvious basic coaching failures. It doesn't mean the coach is a "failure" and only the absolute fringes are even approaching that level of negativity toward MM.

It isn’t the cartoonish extreme. It’s exactly why’s happening by many. It’s the same thing that upsets you about Geno but in the reverse. If we’re going to be consistent in one area we need to be for both.

It’s entirely reasonable to be critical of the staff. I am to in some ways.

 

[Ozzy]

You can make that point again, but honestly, it's not a very good point.

It just pushes everything to cartoonish extremes. Almost no one who is criticizing Mac's team so far is labeling him a "failure" 8 games in. Almost no one who is criticizing Mac is doing it because they're crying about Pete.

It is FINE to criticize obvious basic coaching failures. It doesn't mean the coach is a "failure" and only the absolute fringes are even approaching that level of negativity toward MM.

people are saying exactly that though. In fact you’ve said it by saying it’s been a mistake to bring him in, you’ve alluded to the firing of Pete too. I think it’s valid for people to push back on that a little. It’s not a personal jab when people disagree this stuff. It’s all in fun and you’re free to view the current staff however you like, but people are free to challenge those takes as well.

 

[Ozzy]

Mebane isn't wrong, but we should also be clear about his comments.

He specifically harps on the alignment and spacing being all wrong and the defense getting attacked the same way over and over with little adjustment.

That's coaching. It's very, very basic coaching.

But you’re drawing a conclusion from his comments that he doesn’t agree with. He seems to say the players already know this stuff and need to do it. He’s making the exact opposite point/conclusion reached than you have. I may need to rewatch it as I could have it wrong

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I don’t know I haven’t studied them but it’s an entirely different team that could have different issues that affected them last year. Did they have a ton of injuries last year? Add anyone this year? I think it’s fair to ask.

I’ll make this point again. A lot of the people saying Macdonald is a massive failure are the same people who said Seattle was crazy to move on from Pete who fielded a near worst in the league defense for 3 years with a similar cast. Makes me think this has more to do with Pete being gone and still being upset about it. I could be massively wrong but that’s the vibe that comes across for some.

Mebane played in the league, I’ll take his word for it

Sure, you could respond to a debate point by visiting the motives of the ones making it, but it's a tactic that would get you kicked off a 7th grade speech and debate team.

To your point, though, Pete fielded a near worst in the league defense. He also fielded the best defense in football at one time. People assumed that the latter was no longer a possibility because of...reasons, I don't know, a solid case was never made...and assumed that "anything would be better". Well, now they have anything, and we are being told that we need to wait three years for the defense to gel.

 

[Ozzy]

Sure, you could respond to a debate point by visiting the motives of the ones making it, but it's a tactic that would get you kicked off a 7th grade speech and debate team.

To your point, though, Pete fielded a near worst in the league defense. He also fielded the best defense in football at one time. People assumed that the latter was no longer a possibility because of...reasons, I don't know, a solid case was never made...and assumed that "anything would be better". Well, now they have anything, and we are being told that we need to wait three years for the defense to gel.

Solid reasons? It was bad for 7 years. That’s not a valid criticism? You’ve just proven my point. Yeah I think 1 year, 2 years is entirely reasonable if the coach you think got fired and it wasn’t fair after 7. If one of the all time greats couldn’t figure it out after 7 years and constantly dumping a ton of resources at it then yeah 8 games is a little quick.

Well to your first point any time I mention Geno I get accused of that very same thing then yeah I’m going to use it against people who do that. Hell you did the same thing ironically in your rebuttal about people’s motives against Pete.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Solid reasons? It was bad for 7 years. That’s not a valid criticism?

I guess you didn't follow the Patriots much from 2005-2013, or their drafting especially. Ask any of them about "Chad Jackson" and watch the conniptions begin. And Mike Tomlin is currently looking very, very good on both sides of the ball.

Yeah I think 1 year, 2 years is entirely reasonable

You've walked it back from 3. What happened to 3?

Hell you did the same thing ironically in your rebuttal about people’s motives against Pete.

What, because I was one of the ones who was dissatisfied with Pete's firing?

My whole point is that separate motives don't disqualify an otherwise sound judgment, so you can't rely on addressing said motives to disqualify the judgment. You have to address the judgment on its own separate points.

Mine are this: Mike's defense is currently terrible. It's lining up wrong, bad run fits, terrible tackling, poor block-shedding philosophy, bad decision-making, bad angles, and spotty effort. If your denial of that assessment is going to be "Well you just wanted Pete", you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone except those who already agree with you.

They will not give Mike 3 years to fix this.

 

[soxhawk]

Mike won't be given that long unless they show signs they are going in the correct direction. Games like last week are bad signs. We must see development. We won 9 games last year. No reason for this team to take a step back.

We aren't going back!

Hard to say since most of these are Pete's guys and they might not respond to MM style of coaching. I would give this year a pass, but expect a noticeable improvement in consistency next season. Hate to wait, but Pete & MM are really different.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Sure, you could respond to a debate point by visiting the motives of the ones making it, but it's a tactic that would get you kicked off a 7th grade speech and debate team.

To your point, though, Pete fielded a near worst in the league defense. He also fielded the best defense in football at one time. People assumed that the latter was no longer a possibility because of...reasons, I don't know, a solid case was never made...and assumed that "anything would be better". Well, now they have anything, and we are being told that we need to wait three years for the defense to gel.

A solid case was made. Carroll's teams had not fielded a top 10 defense since 2016. That is the better part of the decade being either a mediocre defense or in the case of half of the seasons, near the leagues worst. Carroll was also on the wrong side of 70. His defenses progressively got worse and we started missing the playoffs more and more. After the LOB scattered to the wind in 2017, the Seahawks had a grand total of one playoff win that came against a 40 year old McCown.

Carroll spent 6 years trying tying to rebuild the LOB, the results? A defense that progressively got worse and worse. Mind you, this is the guy that had full control of the FO and any coaching decisions, roster cuts and trades. At the time of his firing, he was among one of the oldest coaches to ever coach in the NFL. So tell me, what about Pete Carroll tells you that he could recreate the vaunted LOB?

Is it the piss poor playoff record, is it getting our faces stomped in by McVay, or getting punched by Shannahan later in his SF career? Was it the NFL talent he failed to develop or the poor fundamentals that started taking place under Carroll later in his regime?

Past results do not mean guarantee future performance. What about a 70 year old head coach that was struggling to keep up with the modern NFL defenses and offensive trends says that he would EVER repeat that? His contract was also starting to run out, what did you want? The Seahawks to wheel out the corpse of Pete Carroll?

Despite what I say, Carroll was still not a bad head coach, far from it, but it was time that we moved on. Sometimes that means you end up with a guy that doesn't cut it. Is MacDonald going to be the guy that doesn't cut it? We can't say that yet. He's a new head coach sitting at .500 with some baffling questionable results. Let us not forget that Pete Carroll took an 8-8 Jets team to a 6 win team in his first season as HC.

There is a learning curve. Carroll at the end of his stint here was NOT the answer, it was time to move on. Hell -- MacDonald may still not be the answer. That being said, I'm seeing a lot of revisionist history on Pete Carroll's final years here.

The guy was an NFL legend, but he struggled to adapt to NFL trends, in addition to that, Richard, KJ Norton Jr and Hurts were god awful DC hires -- specifically that last one.

 

[Chukarhawk]

A solid case was made. Carroll's teams had not fielded a top 10 defense since 2016. That is the better part of the decade being either a mediocre defense or in the case of half of the seasons, near the leagues worst. Carroll was also on the wrong side of 70. His defenses progressively got worse and we started missing the playoffs more and more. After the LOB scattered to the wind in 2017, the Seahawks had a grand total of one playoff win that came against a 40 year old McCown.

Carroll spent 6 years trying tying to rebuild the LOB, the results? A defense that progressively got worse and worse. Mind you, this is the guy that had full control of the FO and any coaching decisions, roster cuts and trades. At the time of his firing, he was among one of the oldest coaches to ever coach in the NFL. So tell me, what about Pete Carroll tells you that he could recreate the vaunted LOB?

Is it the piss poor playoff record, is it getting our faces stomped in by McVay, or getting punched by Shannahan later in his SF career? Was it the NFL talent he failed to develop or the poor fundamentals that started taking place under Carroll later in his regime?

Past results do not mean guarantee future performance. What about a 70 year old head coach that was struggling to keep up with the modern NFL defenses and offensive trends says that he would EVER repeat that? His contract was also starting to run out, what did you want? The Seahawks to wheel out the corpse of Pete Carroll?

Despite what I say, Carroll was still not a bad head coach, far from it, but it was time that we moved on. Sometimes that means you end up with a guy that doesn't cut it. Is MacDonald going to be the guy that doesn't cut it? We can't say that yet. He's a new head coach sitting at .500 with some baffling questionable results. Let us not forget that Pete Carroll took an 8-8 Jets team to a 6 win team in his first season as HC.

There is a learning curve. Carroll at the end of his stint here was NOT the answer, it was time to move on. Hell -- MacDonald may still not be the answer. That being said, I'm seeing a lot of revisionist history on Pete Carroll's final years here.

The guy was an NFL legend, but he struggled to adapt to NFL trends, in addition to that, Richard, KJ Norton Jr and Hurts were god awful DC hires -- specifically that last one.

great post.

 

[Ozzy]

I guess you didn't follow the Patriots much from 2005-2013, or their drafting especially. Ask any of them about "Chad Jackson" and watch the conniptions begin. And Mike Tomlin is currently looking very, very good on both sides of the ball.


You've walked it back from 3. What happened to 3?


What, because I was one of the ones who was dissatisfied with Pete's firing?

My whole point is that separate motives don't disqualify an otherwise sound judgment, so you can't rely on addressing said motives to disqualify the judgment. You have to address the judgment on its own separate points.

Mine are this: Mike's defense is currently terrible. It's lining up wrong, bad run fits, terrible tackling, poor block-shedding philosophy, bad decision-making, bad angles, and spotty effort. If your denial of that assessment is going to be "Well you just wanted Pete", you're not going to be taken seriously by anyone except those who already agree with you.

They will not give Mike 3 years to fix this.

Not going to address the Pete point. You’ve judged people’s motives about why they felt Pete should go after saying I shouldn’t just someone’s motives.

1-3 years: I think the whole range is reasonable to be honest. I hope it doesn’t take 3 years but I also think Pete/john didn’t leave us in a good cap situation, took some valuable draft stock last year and left a roster that isn’t ideal for what Mike wants to do. Maybe we get lucky and hit some home runs in the draft and we can speed it up? I hope so but again if one of the greatest coaches in history couldn’t figure it out I’m willing to give the new guy some time. Seems reasonable to me even if you disagree?

Now to your final point: I post dozens of times a day and it should be obvious that’s not my point. I was making a specific point to a specific group of people.

The defense needs to play better and it’s a complicated system that is going to take some time to gel. If your whole point is this is easy and that Lofa and Mebane are wrong then that may not be taken seriously either or at least met with some resistance.

 

[JayhawkMike]

I don't get into the minutia of the PC debate.

THREE playoff Wins in NINE years with all of them coming in different years and not an iota of a chance of ever getting to the Super Bowl again.

That's all that mattered to me and he should have been gone yearS earlier. If the PC lovers want to cry about MM after less than half a season that reflects poorly on them not on MM.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Generally it seems good coaches show improvement in Year 2. Carroll didn't have a perfect roster in Y2, he still showed improvement. Most good coaches seem to.

Defenders of bad coaches seem to use 'need more time' or 'just need their players' as regular defenses.

Plenty of good or even great coaches struggle in Y1. We will see if Y1 is an aberration or a trend.

Can anyone share examples of coaches who struggled for 3 years and then suddenly became exceptional after getting 'their' players and getting more time? (Y4+) I am struggling to come up with many (or any?).

 

[Aircrew]

3 years? The 12's will have 5 assistants, 3 head coaches, 2 GMs, and 1 owner fired by then!

*The Jets have entered the chat

 

[Ozzy]

Generally it seems good coaches show improvement in Year 2. Carroll didn't have a perfect roster in Y2, he still showed improvement. Most good coaches seem to.

Defenders of bad coaches seem to use 'need more time' or 'just need their players' as regular defenses.

Plenty of good or even great coaches struggle in Y1. We will see if Y1 is an aberration or a trend.

Can anyone share examples of coaches who struggled for 3 years and then suddenly became exceptional after getting 'their' players and getting more time? (Y4+) I am struggling to come up with many (or any?).

I’m sure teams have improved a defense over a 2-4 year period, the alternative that a defense only drastically improves in year one can’t be the only way right? Now Pete is an all time great but we hit two unicorn drafts those first two years.

I really don’t think any of us are all that far apart on this issue if we were sitting around a table instead of this format. Everything needs to improve. We need better players, the coaches while I believe are excellent coaches, need to find a way to connect to these players. No one is fully wrong here.

 

[Sperrydogg]

It’s weird reading through this and seeing how much people attack each other. It seems like people could disagree or have different views without being peckers. I like this sight but some people make it pretty unfun… such attitudes, like I wish I could have some of these conversations face to face. I bet they would be way different. I have deleted so many harsh comments I wanted to say to people on here cause I don’t want to stoop way down to the level of being mean to someone because I think they are wrong. I left this sight for a year because I got so sick of the old ladies bickering, and if you think I’m talking about you you’re probably right. I admit I’ve said some stupid takes that I shoulda thought through but I try hard not to be mean and just have fun and be humorous but dang guys this is lame sometimes like you really want to belittle someone so bad cause you think they’re wrong? Like what do you want them to be like “ oh you’re so smart and I’m an idiot. My bad for saying something you disagree with” I know if I was standing face to face with most of you, you would not be rude. I can’t stand computer trolls…. Ozzy I like the things you say man and your never rude but some guys are and they suck… just cause you use lots of big words and stuff doesn’t make you like smart man. Being smart is disagreeing without being a big bag of douche.

 

[Ozzy]

I don't know what Mebane even said. I'm questioning a specific point brought up in the discussion about the gap in defensive talent between the Chargers and Seahawks, particularly the assertion that the former is so supremely and undeniably talented that none their dramatic improvement can be attributed to coaching, while the latter is so hopelessly untalented that nobody would have had any hope at getting anything more out of them.

Sounds like you didn't know. I'll leave the question up anyway, in case somebody who doesn't need to be told what their opinions are has any insight into it.

lol sounds good dude.