Brian "The Sheriff" Schottenheimer?

[brimsalabim]

+1, it's maddening to see so many teams check down and do quick screens to the RB's. No reason this team can't do that. In fact, with a swiss cheese o-line, check downs would be huge for this team imo.

Check down to who? Where? Soe one has to design plays that actually put players into position to be able to be a check down option first.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Design a damn offense that is versatile and not predictable.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Schotty too hotty.

Money Schotts?

 

[mrblitz]

'beam me up, schotty'

 

[ivotuk]

Jello Schotts.

As far as coaches go, sometimes they need time and experience to learn to do the job like it should be done.

Pete failed a couple of times, Kyle Shanahan had some bad stops along the way.

Gus Bradley is a good coach, and he probably learned a lot at Jacksonville. Enough that he may succeed the next time around.

Coaches just need to be in the right situation, with talent on the offense, and a good head coach. Otherwise, they are bound to fail.

People use his stint in St Louis to judge him by, but they beat us with an unknown QB.

He got a Marc Sanchez led team to the AFCCG twice. A lot of that had to do with the defense, but they still had good numbers on the offense.

I just hope he has his dad's talent for running the ball. Two 1,000 yard rushers in Cleveland.

 

[scutterhawk]

Perhaps an easier way to understand it is to use the post-it note example.

The adhesive was developed as a permanent adhesive to cement two things together, but it failed spectacularly in that context.

However, in the context of making a temporary adhesive to stick a piece of paper to something without leaving residue, it was a massive success that redefined office notes.

Sometimes things simply have the wrong properties for the context they are in but that should not be used to rule them out of a different context. Schottenheimer would not have been hired if he did not display attributes that Carroll wanted. We can only hope those attributes cause him to be more successful in our context than in his previous jobs.

LOL, Some in here would have us believe that Pete Carroll purposely brought Schottenheimer in to scuttle the Seahawks.
It's like (PC) is not as savvy as they are at judging talent, or doing what's best for the Seahawks organization.
Oh and......Tim Ruskell was NOT a Coach.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Great, could you please provide some facts to back up you assertions rather than childish insults? What about anything that I said there was BS? It is undeniable fact that Schottenheimer was fired from three jobs. It is also undeniable that the UGA Bulldogs dropped in offensive production quite drastically under Schottenheimer, and improved dramatically after he left. There is a body of undeniable evidence that is against Schottenheimer's body of work as an offensive coordinator. I get that you're looking at this with Seahawk colored glasses, but if you take off those glasses and looked at things objectively you would see that his career is marked with failure.

Have you ever heard of Non Sequiter? It's a debate tactic that employs false logic in the form of presenting evidence that, while it looks quite relevant, really doesn't support the argument.

It's Latin for "doesn't follow". As in if a coach is fired several times from NFL jobs, it doesn't necessarily follow that he will fail if given another opportunity. See, for example, Pete Carroll, who was fired from his previous head coaching gigs and was generally thought to be one of those guys who could coach college but not the pros.

Have you heard of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc? It means "After this, therefore because of this". It is another logical fallacy in which the because two things happened, the second must be a result of the first. As in "Schottenheimer was hired as OC in Miami", "Miami didn't have a potent offense" therefore Schottenheimer as OC caused the anemic offense. It is fallacious because it dismisses other factors such as poor personnel, for example. Schottenheimer was fired because he bore the ultimate responsibility and accountability for the offense - regardless of personnel, injury, or circumstance.

So while screaming about evidence and facts, the real fact is you, nor I, have any idea how Schottenheimer will perform under the tutelage of Pete Carroll, and with the resources at hand like Russell Wilson and the rest of our offensive tools.

You can call your circumstantial and anecdotal points "undeniable evidence" all day long and demand proof from others, but I suggest you have yet to offer any concrete proof yourself other than some false logic you are representing as truth.

None of us will have any evidence, undeniable or otherwise, until we see how Schottenheimer performs in the Seahawks culture, with the Seahawks players, front office, coaches, etc., and that is about the only thing we know for certain.

Circumstantial evidence? So I guess we should just overlook 10 years of underachieving and failure? Got you. You all keep screaming "just give him a chance!" but guess what? He has had many chances. I will gladly eat crow if I'm wrong, but what you all are going on is blind hope. There is nothing that supports the argument that he will do a good job here as OC, other than a talented QB that thrives off of broken plays and broken structure. You can keep yelling post hoc all you want, but the facts are facts. He has failed everywhere he has went, can you not rectify that fact in your head?

Pete Carroll has made many mistakes as head coach, especially on the offensive side of the ball. There is nothing that tells me anything will be different under Schottenheimer than it was under Bevell. We hired a proven failure, and dud. As I will gladly eat crow if this guy is a dud, but let me tell you, I don't think I'm going to be wrong. There is not much evidence that suggest I will be either. Everyone just keeps spouting TRUST PETE CARROLL! Pete Carroll is not infallible, and he does not have a good track record when it comes to offensive coaches.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Perhaps an easier way to understand it is to use the post-it note example.

The adhesive was developed as a permanent adhesive to cement two things together, but it failed spectacularly in that context.

However, in the context of making a temporary adhesive to stick a piece of paper to something without leaving residue, it was a massive success that redefined office notes.

Sometimes things simply have the wrong properties for the context they are in but that should not be used to rule them out of a different context. Schottenheimer would not have been hired if he did not display attributes that Carroll wanted. We can only hope those attributes cause him to be more successful in our context than in his previous jobs.

LOL, Some in here would have us believe that Pete Carroll purposely brought Schottenheimer in to scuttle the Seahawks.
It's like (PC) is not as savvy as they are at judging talent, or doing what's best for the Seahawks organization.
Oh and......Tim Ruskell was NOT a Coach.

Pete Carroll has proven many times that he is not savvy when it comes to hiring offensive coordinators. Jeremy Bates, Kiffin, Sarkesian, and Bevell/Cable is not a very inspiring list.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Pete Carroll has proven many times that he is not savvy when it comes to hiring offensive coordinators. Jeremy Bates, Kiffin, Sarkesian, and Bevell/Cable is not a very inspiring list.

I'm not so sure Bates should be lumped in with the rest of them when it comes to OC discussions.

I guess we'll get to find out, he's the new OC for the Jets this year.

 

[WindCityHawk]

While everyone else is grimacing at his resume, I'm far more encouraged by this quote from Drew Brees in that second article:

“You’ve got a lot of work to do in a short amount of time and I think he’ll come in obviously with the pieces that are in place there and really do a great job organizing and getting them in the direction he wants them to go. I’m sure the system will fit all of the guys that are there, I think that’s something that he brings to the table. He comes in with the mindset that I’m going to take the talent that I have, the pieces that I have and I’m going to put everybody in the best position to succeed.”

This was my primary problem with Bevell--intended or not, it felt like he was always trying to impose his system onto a roster that didn't fit it. Square pegs, round holes, etc. Graham was a classic example, asking Baldwin to block for Kearse on screens and so forth. It just seemed like Bevell didn't care who was on the field, he was going to go ahead with his scheme above all else. And I prayed to my television to just use this roster to it's strengths, regardless of what that looks like. Sounds like Schottenheimer will.

That alone could be a huge upgrade. Brian "The Sensible" Schottenheimer.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Some great points by WindCityHawk and Kiwi earlier in this thread. In addition to the logical fallacies pointed out by Kiwi. I would point out the absurdity of evaluating an offensive coordinator, a single cog within a system, based solely on the total statistical output of the entire offense.

If we evaluate an offensive coordinator based on the total statistical output of the offenses coached, we are in actuality stating that the players are not a contributing factor. Therefore, there is no point in paying for an above average quarterback, or any other offensive player for that matter. Many who have complained about the Schottenheimer hiring using raw team statistics to support their grumbling, have also been complaining about PC/JS spending too little on the offensive line. Hopefully those who have done this can see the contradiction so there is no need for me to continue to press the point. If we can accept the simple reality that the total statistical output of a team offense is a product of a combination of factors, including the talent and fit of the offensive players, the structure of the offense, scheme, play calling, and even the talent of the defense (better defenses help win the time of possession battle, thereby, giving the offense more opportunity to score), then it is abundantly clear that evaluating an offensive coordinator based on a team’s total statistical offensive output is irrational.

Certainly results do matter. However, the only individual within any organization who can be effectively evaluated from the outside based exclusively on organizational results is the individual with ultimate authority for decision making. There are much more effective ways of evaluating individuals within a system, such as processes and incremental results. As to evaluating processes, I have no doubt that Pete and John evaluated Schottenheimer’s processes in depth. They have determined that his processes are conducive to success within the Seahawk program. As to incremental results, there has been substantial misinformation spread by some in here. Manipulating statistics to serve your purpose is dirty pool.

In 2005, the year before Schottenheimer took over as OC, the Jets offense ranked 29th in scoring. The following year, the first year under Schottenheimer, the Jets ranked 19th. In 2011, Schottenheimer’s final year with the Jets, the Jets ranked 13th in scoring. The following year with the same quarterback, the Jets ranked 28th. In 2011, the year before Schottenheimer took over as OC, the Rams ranked 32nd in scoring offense. The following year with Schottenheimer the Rams ranked 25th. In Schottenheimer’s final year with the Rams, 2014, the Rams ranked 21st in scoring offense. The year after Schottenheimer left, the Rams ranked 29th. This narrative that team offense has deteriorated under Schottenheimer and improved after his departure is false.

 

[RolandDeschain]

This narrative that team offense has deteriorated under Schottenheimer and improved after his departure is false.

WHOA THERE, calm yourself! Don't bring facts to a factless fight. People are venting because whomever their dream candidate was didn't get hired.

 

[scutterhawk]

Perhaps an easier way to understand it is to use the post-it note example.

The adhesive was developed as a permanent adhesive to cement two things together, but it failed spectacularly in that context.

However, in the context of making a temporary adhesive to stick a piece of paper to something without leaving residue, it was a massive success that redefined office notes.

Sometimes things simply have the wrong properties for the context they are in but that should not be used to rule them out of a different context. Schottenheimer would not have been hired if he did not display attributes that Carroll wanted. We can only hope those attributes cause him to be more successful in our context than in his previous jobs.

LOL, Some in here would have us believe that Pete Carroll purposely brought Schottenheimer in to scuttle the Seahawks.
It's like (PC) is not as savvy as they are at judging talent, or doing what's best for the Seahawks organization.
Oh and......Tim Ruskell was NOT a Coach.

Pete Carroll has proven many times that he is not savvy when it comes to hiring offensive coordinators. Jeremy Bates, Kiffin, Sarkesian, and Bevell/Cable is not a very inspiring list.

Enough savvy to WIN a Super Bowl, and nearly another the following Year, that's undisputable CREDENTIALS.
AND, Playoffs 5 Years in a row...Two of those WITHOUT Marshawn Lynch & a decent Run Game.
What can you offer up as a credible argument against his winning formula.
Look, if y'all want to hang onto the negatives, go for it. :lol:
Cable & Bevell became stale and PREDICTABLE, thus getting them axed from Seattle, but in the beginning, they were effective enough to get us our first Lombardi.

 

[LickMyNuts]

“Schotts! You roll over and let Uncle Pete scratch your belly!”

 

[chris98251]

Perhaps an easier way to understand it is to use the post-it note example.

The adhesive was developed as a permanent adhesive to cement two things together, but it failed spectacularly in that context.

However, in the context of making a temporary adhesive to stick a piece of paper to something without leaving residue, it was a massive success that redefined office notes.

Sometimes things simply have the wrong properties for the context they are in but that should not be used to rule them out of a different context. Schottenheimer would not have been hired if he did not display attributes that Carroll wanted. We can only hope those attributes cause him to be more successful in our context than in his previous jobs.

LOL, Some in here would have us believe that Pete Carroll purposely brought Schottenheimer in to scuttle the Seahawks.
It's like (PC) is not as savvy as they are at judging talent, or doing what's best for the Seahawks organization.
Oh and......Tim Ruskell was NOT a Coach.

Pete Carroll has proven many times that he is not savvy when it comes to hiring offensive coordinators. Jeremy Bates, Kiffin, Sarkesian, and Bevell/Cable is not a very inspiring list.

Enough savvy to WIN a Super Bowl, and nearly another the following Year, that's undisputable CREDENTIALS.
AND, Playoffs 5 Years in a row...Two of those WITHOUT Marshawn Lynch & a decent Run Game.
What can you offer up as a credible argument against his winning formula.
Look, if y'all want to hang onto the negatives, go for it. :lol:
Cable & Bevell became stale and PREDICTABLE, thus getting them axed from Seattle, but in the beginning, they were effective enough to get us our first Lombardi.

What's indisputable is our defense gave our offense a short field with turnovers, we had a running game, we were contenders or risers not participants or backed our way in somehow, there is a difference.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

LOL, Some in here would have us believe that Pete Carroll purposely brought Schottenheimer in to scuttle the Seahawks.
It's like (PC) is not as savvy as they are at judging talent, or doing what's best for the Seahawks organization.
Oh and......Tim Ruskell was NOT a Coach.

Pete Carroll has proven many times that he is not savvy when it comes to hiring offensive coordinators. Jeremy Bates, Kiffin, Sarkesian, and Bevell/Cable is not a very inspiring list.

Enough savvy to WIN a Super Bowl, and nearly another the following Year, that's undisputable CREDENTIALS.
AND, Playoffs 5 Years in a row...Two of those WITHOUT Marshawn Lynch & a decent Run Game.
What can you offer up as a credible argument against his winning formula.
Look, if y'all want to hang onto the negatives, go for it. :lol:
Cable & Bevell became stale and PREDICTABLE, thus getting them axed from Seattle, but in the beginning, they were effective enough to get us our first Lombardi.

What's indisputable is our defense gave our offense a short field with turnovers, we had a running game, we were contenders or risers not participants or backed our way in somehow, there is a difference.

Every time I don my Mack Strong jersey, I'm reminded that every year Seattle had a great rushing game, they also had a fullback. Was it the only difference? No, but an extra blocker when the box is stacked never hurts.

 

[WindCityHawk]

This is all I want to say on the subject, because Bevell isn't a Seahawk anymore, but when discussing his metrics of success with the team, you cannot ignore the transcendent, Hall of Fame play of Marshawn Lynch.

Lynch was not known for bursting through well-designed running lanes. Lynch was known for breaking tackles and carrying defenders on his back. He was hit in the backfield or swallowed at the line about as much as our backs now. The difference was that Lynch could play through it, which kept drives alive, which made Bevell look better on paper AND on the field. But it was Lynch doing all the work. And when it wasn't Lynch, it was Wilson making himself famous for improvising--that is, going off script. When actors improvise, you don't award the script writer.

Returning to the topic at hand: While Schottenheimer isn't a media darling, I'm actually getting really excited to see what an outside perspective can bring to this offense, and to see Wilson's next chapter.

In academia, students are discouraged from pursuing advanced degrees at the same college they just graduated from, because its understood that people benefit from fresh perspectives, and studying under different people. That said, I'm excited to see how Wilson improves or changes under a new QB coach and Coordinator. Particularly one who it sounds like may be a little harder on him.

 

[scutterhawk]

This is all I want to say on the subject, because Bevell isn't a Seahawk anymore, but when discussing his metrics of success with the team, you cannot ignore the transcendent, Hall of Fame play of Marshawn Lynch.

Lynch was not known for bursting through well-designed running lanes. Lynch was known for breaking tackles and carrying defenders on his back. He was hit in the backfield or swallowed at the line about as much as our backs now. The difference was that Lynch could play through it, which kept drives alive, which made Bevell look better on paper AND on the field. But it was Lynch doing all the work. And when it wasn't Lynch, it was Wilson making himself famous for improvising--that is, going off script. When actors improvise, you don't award the script writer.

Returning to the topic at hand: While Schottenheimer isn't a media darling, I'm actually getting really excited to see what an outside perspective can bring to this offense, and to see Wilson's next chapter.

In academia, students are discouraged from pursuing advanced degrees at the same college they just graduated from, because its understood that people benefit from fresh perspectives, and studying under different people. That said, I'm excited to see how Wilson improves or changes under a new QB coach and Coordinator. Particularly one who it sounds like may be a little harder on him.

In all fairness, back when we had better O-Line production, there were a lot of very well called games where Bevell's "Script's" were followed to a 'T'.
It's the last couple of years where he got way too predictable that got him sent packing, and too, Bevell was hamstrung with Cables O-Line misfits.
Some would have us believe that it was the Defense, along with Wilson & Lynch that got us all the Wins, and that it was the the Offense, (minus Wilson & Lynch) that got us all those losses....That simply isn't the truth.

 

[PlinytheCenter]

A confrontational type of approach to Wilson and the whole offense might be just what the doctor ordered.
Just like the days when Holmgren would yell at Hasselbeck coming off the sidelines, it'd be interesting to see Schottenheimer lose his cool on Wilson after a turnover or three and out, assuming Schottenheimer coaches from the sideline and not the booth.

LOL...there were times I thought Holmgren was going to have a stroke yelling at Hass.

 

[RolandDeschain]

In all fairness, back when we had better O-Line production, there were a lot of very well called games where Bevell's "Script's" were followed to a 'T'.
It's the last couple of years where he got way too predictable that got him sent packing, and too, Bevell was hamstrung with Cables O-Line misfits.
Some would have us believe that it was the Defense, along with Wilson & Lynch that got us all the Wins, and that it was the the Offense, (minus Wilson & Lynch) that got us all those losses....That simply isn't the truth.

There are also a lot of Seahawks fans playing revisionist historian. Lynch and Wilson combining to be amazing in the face of adversity doesn't mean that the game was a well-called one, despite a successful ultimate outcome. :roll: