Do we have a better team Today than the day Pete was hired?

[m0ng0]

Yeah we are WAY BETTER than we were when he started

 

[TwistedHusky]

We are now.
Pretty sure we won't be later.
It will be pretty difficult to get to that 2009 where there are probably 5-7 players worth continuing with on the whole roster. But we will probably get very close.
That was the whole fear of keeping Pete when he lost his ability to adequately draft and now wasn't even getting much of the upside players anymore.

Be careful in mocking the OP because he might just turn out to be Nostradamus later.

 

[Chukarhawk]

I voted no becuase we have the single worst QB room in the league. That team had Hasslebeck at least.

 

[jammerhawk]

Seatown undoubtedly that's probably true yet we are all fans of the team here and in my best moderator tone i'd like to see less ad hominem in the replies as the question is a legit question even if it comes couched in an yet another Anti-Pete attempt to slam the FO. We can all disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[rcaido]

Im excited to see our defense and hoping we have a great running game. Lots of talent on this team. Sadly no qb the most important position makes 2010 team a better team. They also had Lynch and rookie star Earl Thomas.

They were able to make the playoffs...This current team probably only get 4wins. If Hass was playing for this team we probably get 9 to 11 wins.

 

[jammerhawk]

This thread will be interesting to revisit after the season is over. 4 wins for the year seems more than a tad pessimistic but to each their own.

To me it had become clear the team was not going anywhere at the end of this last season as the QB and the coaches were at odds in terms of offensive philosophy and this QB was going to want to be paid either on a % of cap basis as guaranteed or $50 mil/yr. for 5 years all guaranteed. Who says a game manager style QB can't win in the present NFL.? It was time to move on for both sides and that is what happened.

The run first philosophy in question seemed to work pretty well for the Niners last year. This team has good quality depth at quite a few positions which was not the case in 2010. QB however, remains a legitimate concern somehow though you have to believe they may not be done there yet. time will tells the answer. The team as a whole is better now than it was then without a doubt.

If we assess the roster there are quite a few players whose play is trading upwards rather then downwards, and some quality potential upward trading players of a greater number than the 2009 team. The team is looking at being stronger with more available cap looking forward after eating all the dead cap this year and they still have $17 Mil plus to spend.

The OLine is under new management, there is a new DC, we are in the 2nd year of a new OC. This after a fall from 1st in the division the prior season to a 7-9 season instead of a 4-12 season as was the case back after 2009.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Yes, it isn't even an arguable point. The team that Carroll took over was in absolute shambles. Our best players were at the end of their careers, we had virtually zero up and coming talent.

 

[BASF]

Im excited to see our defense and hoping we have a great running game. Lots of talent on this team. Sadly no qb the most important position makes 2010 team a better team. They also had Lynch and rookie star Earl Thomas.

They were able to make the playoffs...This current team probably only get 4wins. If Hass was playing for this team we probably get 9 to 11 wins.

You are not answering the original question though. The question is were they better when Pete was hired. Lynch was a Carroll trade. Thomas was a Carroll draft pick. You need to answer the question based on the 2009 roster before Carroll was hired.

Looking over the rosters, the only starters who would probably start for this team if they were brought forward at that part of their careers are Hass, Curry and Mebane over what we have now. Unger was not that good in his rookie year and probably would not be able to beat out Gabe Jackson. I guarantee that Carroll would not have chosen Curry that early in the draft, but I would bet that under Carroll, Curry's career would have turned out much better.

 

[Spin Doctor]

This thread will be interesting to revisit after the season is over. 4 wins for the year seems more than a tad pessimistic but to each their own.

To me it had become clear the team was not going anywhere at the end of this last season as the QB and the coaches were at odds in terms of offensive philosophy and this QB was going to want to be paid either on a % of cap basis as guaranteed or $50 mil/ for 5 years all guaranteed. Who says a game manager style QB can't win in the present NFL. It was time to move on for both sides and that is what happened.

The run first philosophy in question seemed to work pretty well for the Niners last year. This team has quality depth at quite a few positions which was no the case in 2010. QB however, remains a legitimate concern somehow you have to believe they may not be done there yet.

If we assess the roster there are quite a few players whose play is trading upwards rather then downwards, and some quality potential upward trading players of a greater number than the 2009 team. The team is looking at being stronger with more available cap looking forward after eating all the dead cap this year and they still have $17 Mil plus to spend.

The OLine is under new management, there is a new DC, we are in the 2nd year of a new OC. This after a fall from 1st in the division the prior season to a 7-9 season instead of a 4-12 season.

You are not answering the original question though. The question is were they better when Pete was hired. Lynch was a Carroll trade. Thomas was a Carroll draft pick. You need to answer the question based on the 2009 roster before Carroll was hired.

Looking over the rosters, the only starters who would probably start for this team if they were brought forward at that part of their careers are Hass, Curry and Mebane over what we have now. Unger was not that good in his rookie year and probably would not be able to beat out Gabe Jackson. I guarantee that Carroll would not have chosen Curry that early in the draft, but I would bet that under Carroll, Curry's career would have turned out much better.

I don't think Curry would start over any over our LBs on the team tbh. You're saying that Curry would miraculously be better under Carroll? You forget, he spent far more time under Carroll than he did under Jim Mora jr. You're right on the fact that only a few players would have started on this team.

The only guys that I could see starting in my books on this team are as follows: Marcus Trufant, Brandon Mebane, Matt Hasselbeck, David Hawthorne (underrated player) as the second ILB next to Brooks in the 3-4 -- and perhaps Nate Burleson as the number 3.

 

[Fade]

Fun Fact: The Seattle Seahawks had 0 Pro-Bowlers in 2009. The cupboards were virtually bare. They were old, slow, small, soft, and injury prone.

No comparison.

 

[Rainger]

I don’t think we do. He was taken us down to where we were when he started.

Youve got to be kidding me.

Man go look at the roster he got from the previous admin. It was in shambles. How can you believe that team had any position group that was better?

Maybe QB but I am not even sure about that. OMG!!!

 

[toffee]

I voted no becuase we have the single worst QB room in the league. That team had Hasslebeck at least.

Football is not Tennis.

 

[Rainger]

We are all fans of the team here.

I don't believe this is true. Just because you have an account on .net doesn't mean you are a Hawks fan!

 

[Spin Doctor]

Fun Fact: The Seattle Seahawks had 0 Pro-Bowlers in 2009. The cupboards were virtually bare. They were old, slow, small, soft, and injury prone.

No comparison.

Our defense was vastly undersized back then. It felt like we took tweeners at virtually every position on defense. These guys weren't particularly explosive from an athletic standpoint either. I still have nightmares of Kelly Jennings being in the defensive backfield. The safety that started opposite of Grant, I can't remember his name. He was another player that gives me nightmares. That guy was horrible.

 

[Throwdown]

Our defense was vastly undersized back then. It felt like we took tweeners at virtually every position on defense. These guys weren't particularly explosive from an athletic standpoint either. I still have nightmares of Kelly Jennings being in the defensive backfield. The safety that started opposite of Grant, I can't remember his name. He was another player that gives me nightmares. That guy was horrible.

Brian Russell!

 

[Ad Hawk]

Where is the OP? Why has the OP not chimed back in here to defend the point?

 

[Rainger]

Im excited to see our defense and hoping we have a great running game. Lots of talent on this team. Sadly no qb the most important position makes 2010 team a better team. They also had Lynch and rookie star Earl Thomas.

They were able to make the playoffs...This current team probably only get 4wins. If Hass was playing for this team we probably get 9 to 11 wins.

Are you a new Hawk fan. Lynch and Thomas were acquisitions of PC. You cant look at the final 2010 roster but the end of the 2009 one.

 

[BASF]

I don't think Curry would start over any over our LBs on the team tbh. You're saying that Curry would miraculously be better under Carroll? You forget, he spent far more time under Carroll than he did under Jim Mora jr. You're right on the fact that only a few players would have started on this team.

I am not forgetting that he spent time under Carroll. However, if you listen to Curry's interviews, he admits that in his rookie year he was just happy to have made the NFL and at that point he pretty much gave up in improving. If Carroll and his staff of upbeat motivators had gotten hold of him in his rookie season, I believe his just happy to be there attitude could have been reversed.

Edit to add that if I had not chosen Curry, I would have said Hawthorne. You made a good choice there. He is better than any middle LB we have apart from Brooks, but I do believe that Curry with more motivation would have beaten Hawthorne out and Carroll would have had a much bigger impact with Curry the rookie than Curry the second year player.

 

[Spin Doctor]

I am not forgetting that he spent time under Carroll. However, if you listen to Curry's interviews, he admits that in his rookie year he was just happy to have made the NFL and at that point he pretty much gave up in improving. If Carroll and his staff of upbeat motivators had gotten hold of him in his rookie season, I believe his just happy to be there attitude could have been reversed.

Edit to add that if I had not chosen Curry, I would have said Hawthorne. You made a good choice there. He is better than any middle LB we have apart from Brooks, but I do believe that Curry with more motivation would have beaten Hawthorne out and Carroll would have had a much bigger impact with Curry the rookie than Curry the second year player.

Carroll had Curry for longer than any coach in his brief NFL stint. I don't think that attitude would have miraculously changed just because Carroll got him from day 1. If it didn't work out for him in year 2 and 3 under Carroll, I highly doubt having him in his rookie year would have made much of a difference. Carroll gave him every opportunity in the world to succeed. We've had plenty of players under Carroll that have failed to change their ways. While Curry did play slightly better, he still wasn't even a starting caliber player under Carroll.

Another thing to consider is that perhaps Aaron Curry just wasn't cut out for the pro game. There are many players like him that look great on paper but never are able to make the transition to the NFL. Potential is a value that never has to be cashed in on. Potential is something that a vast majority of NFL prospects never live up to. Curry in the end was a below average LB with elite measurables and a poor mentality. It's also worth noting that in the style of defense that we're transitioning to, there would be no place for Curry either.

Now Hawthorne on the other hand had a long, successful NFL career. He was easily better than any of our inside linebackers and perhaps even better than Brooks in that specific role at the NFL level (Brooks played OLB in the NFL.). He could easily slot in next to Brooks.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Brian Russell!

Thank you and no thank you . I don't think i've ever had a harder time watching another player. Some of the stuff I saw this guy whiff on was dumbfounding.