How close are the Seahawks to a Superbowl run?

[SoulfishHawk]

2024, legit contenders imo.

 

[Chawker]

Ah it's just his shtick. Grumpy, pessimistic old Uncle sitting in his recliner year after year bah humbug'n away. He maybe perpetually grumpy britches year after year but he's our grumpy britches.

Hey, thats me ! LOL

 

[xray]

Assuming 2024 off-season is as good as 2022 & 2023:

Slim chance in 2024. If Geno improves then the window is wide open as long as Geno's play remains elevated. I don't see much chance of this.

I really think we need to get a QBOTF in 2024, unless the coaches have actually fixed Lock's head. To have a realistic shot at a SB win, the Seahawks need a better QB than Geno's current performance level.

^
The road to the SB this year for the NFC goes through Philadelphia . The Hawks don't have the QB or a proven D to threaten Hurts & Co. 1st things 1st...the Hawks need to dethrone SF and win the division ; which is a tall order in itself . I'm in the minority here , by not jumping on the Geno bandwagon . If he actually shows he deserves his contract this season , I may reconsider ; but as it stands right now he's still in the ' prove it ' mode . imho

 

[Spin Doctor]

I don’t think we’ll be legitimate SuperBowl competitors with Geno. I think we’ll be a lot like some of those Viking teams.

 

[Chukarhawk]

I have my doubts that Geno can win in the playoffs we would need a top 3 defense.

 

[12th Dimension]

Not until we fix the D. Scheme or more accurately, lack of scheme stability with the proper personnel is our #1 issue. Are we a 3-4 or a 4-3? Hard to thrive if the coaches and players don’t even know. Pete needs to fix this, one way or the other.

 

[GemCity]

Agree with what most have stated in this thread. I state this in the upmost positive manner when I say we are 2-3 years out.

Although we always comPete, in my mind, we are rebuilding. We’ve essentially gutted the team, took a QB that was written off as we traded our “franchise” guy, replaced key positions, and we STILL made the playoffs. That’s insane.

I think we’re going to look like contenders at times but still lay an egg in games that we should win (like the Tampa game last season). We’re loading up but we need experience.

I’m not even sure it’s a matter of getting “key pieces”. As an example, I’ve seen it questioned if Geno can lead us there. I’m not sure either but I think he can. But to me, it’s getting these guys the experience that they need. Watch what Cross and Lucas do this year….

If I had to pick one and only one position, with perhaps making a false prediction about our rookie crop, DT could be a LIMFAC for a successful run in the coming years (assuming it goes unaddressed).

I’m confident the team will get as good as they can, everywhere they can, whether it be FA or the draft as PC and JS are on a tear.

 

[hoxrox]

I don’t think we’ll be legitimate SuperBowl competitors with Geno. I think we’ll be a lot like some of those Viking teams.

Is Jalen that much better than Geno? Yet Jalen made it to the SB.

At the end of the day, it's still a team game. And the team being built around Geno is one that can contend in the next 2-3 years.

 

[bileever]

Sorry I have no confidence in Pete Carroll. Like i've said for years, he's a great motivator and has/had an eye for talent, but I feel he gets outcoached in the X's and O's arena a lot and he needs optimal talent to succeed because of that. When the Hawks went to Super Bowls under Pete, they had a historically good defense, a RB that led the league in yards after contact, and a young QB that turned out to be the best QB in franchise history. He'll never have those elements again and he cant overcome it from a coaching standpoint. It was the same even at USC. He needed all-star teams to succeed.

I understand where you're coming from, and I don't want to re-open the fire Pete/keep Pete debate, but I just wanted to make a couple of observations that counter your view of Pete Carroll.

I agree that the last few years have been frustrating. Ever since Sean McVay and Kyle Shanahan came out to the west with their new-fangled ideas, we've been struggling to adapt. The whole NFL has had to adapt, actually. Then new superstars keep appearing. Mahomes? Burrow? Hurts? You have to adapt to them, too.

The question is, does Pete have the ability to adapt? You see him as a one-trick pony who cannot change with the times. I see it somewhat differently. I think Pete is a really smart guy, who seems to have the capacity to self-analyze and change as the circumstances dictate. His philosophy is sound, and he makes the people around him better. He's an innovator, so much so that other coaches around the NFL have adopted many of his changes. He has no trouble changing schemes offensively or defensively and replacing coaches when he thinks it's necessary.

We saw last year how he took a pretty poor roster filled with mediocre talent and rookies and had some success. Now, I don't know where we go from here and whether he will continue to have success. There are too many factors that go into that.

And the NFL is hard. The competition is always evolving and adapting. The other teams aren't standing still, either. And it only takes a few wrong bounces or a couple of injuries to completely derail your season. There are 32 coaches in the NFL, and only one wins the Super Bowl each year. It doesn't mean that the other 31 are all bums.

 

[SNDavidson]

We will know about week 8,9,10

 

[pittpnthrs]

You're ignoring Carroll's superpowers in player development. Waldron is helping make up the gap in Xs and Os on offense, but yeah, on defense there is still a talent gap and the Xs and Os are questionable. Also Carroll's loyalty to underachieving assistant coaches hurts him... well, he's improved on that, now to see if Clint Hurtt can perform better with shiny new toys in his second year.

Maybe I turn a blind eye or something, but isnt the player development belief from earlier years? All I tend to see now are players never being resigned after their rookie contracts and success stories when they move on to other teams.

I know my opinion of Pete Carroll isnt popular around here and i'm sorry I feel the way I do, but I have never liked him. I'm gracious to him for the Lombardi we have now, but I just cant see future success with him.

 

[renofox]

Maybe I turn a blind eye or something, but isnt the player development belief from earlier years? All I tend to see now are players never being resigned after their rookie contracts and success stories when they move on to other teams.

I know my opinion of Pete Carroll isnt popular around here and i'm sorry I feel the way I do, but I have never liked him. I'm gracious to him for the Lombardi we have now, but I just cant see future success with him.

Agree with this. Player development seems to be lacking for quite a few years. Then again, it could just be they have been that bad at pre-draft evaluation up until last year.

 

[pittpnthrs]

OMG!!! He put together that historically good defense, he changed the way teams played with CB's and safeties, he changed the way teams used defense in the NFL, he went and got Lynch to pound the rock when the rest of the league had gone away from running, and he gave a hungry QB a chance to start even though the team signed another QB for 10mil.

This is my point your Pete derangement syndrome has your brain in such an emotional brain lock that you see no logic through your emotional hatred.

To say he will never get those elements again when he did it before shows your obsessed hatred and reveals so much how you obviously approach life. I feel really sorry for you as a person, that you can not find any good in the world and only want him to fail to prove your perverse attitude is right.

Edit: Though you say you have been a fan since 76 your post suggests otherwise. I suggest you only started following them after they won the SB and have no knowledge of how, BECAUSE of PC, they actually got there. He built those teams that went to the SB!

Yes he built that team, but the circumstances were different then and to be fair, he got pretty lucky. He had knowledge of the players because he was in the college ranks paying attention to them at the time. He aslo had help from Scot McCloughan who was one of the best scouts/GM/executives in the NFL. And yes Petes defense changed the way teams looked at players and schemed, but the game has since changed away from that concept. The LOB caused the league to clamp down on the contact and holding, so its a moot point in the present.

I dont think he'll ever have those elements again because he doesnt have the resources once given to him or the time anymore. I dont want him to fail but the patterns from the past 8 years indicate he will (meaning not sniffing another Super Bowl). Lets face it, when the coach of your team openly admits more than once that he didnt understand or grasp what the other team was doing, that raises some serious flags.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Yes, that's typically the parts needed for ANY team to win a superbowl - 7 of the last 9 superbowls have been won by all-star teams led by Brady, Mahomes or (Peyton) Manning, with teams that have had top of the league defenses and superstar players across the board. The 2017 Eagles are probably the exception of the last decade. The Rams destroyed their salary cap to get one and have had to carve out half of the team just to keep afloat.

Brady, Mahomes, and Manning still didnt have the complete teams that Pete had in 2013 and 2014. To say they did is ludicrous.

 

[Hawknight]

Agree with this. Player development seems to be lacking for quite a few years. Then again, it could just be they have been that bad at pre-draft evaluation up until last year.

Bad at pre-draft evaluations or trying to appease the QB at the center of everyone's world over the last several seasons before being traded?

 

[pittpnthrs]

I understand where you're coming from, and I don't want to re-open the fire Pete/keep Pete debate, but I just wanted to make a couple of observations that counter your view of Pete Carroll.

I agree that the last few years have been frustrating. Ever since Sean McVay and Kyle Shanahan came out to the west with their new-fangled ideas, we've been struggling to adapt. The whole NFL has had to adapt, actually. Then new superstars keep appearing. Mahomes? Burrow? Hurts? You have to adapt to them, too.

The question is, does Pete have the ability to adapt? You see him as a one-trick pony who cannot change with the times. I see it somewhat differently. I think Pete is a really smart guy, who seems to have the capacity to self-analyze and change as the circumstances dictate. His philosophy is sound, and he makes the people around him better. He's an innovator, so much so that other coaches around the NFL have adopted many of his changes. He has no trouble changing schemes offensively or defensively and replacing coaches when he thinks it's necessary.

We saw last year how he took a pretty poor roster filled with mediocre talent and rookies and had some success. Now, I don't know where we go from here and whether he will continue to have success. There are too many factors that go into that.

And the NFL is hard. The competition is always evolving and adapting. The other teams aren't standing still, either. And it only takes a few wrong bounces or a couple of injuries to completely derail your season. There are 32 coaches in the NFL, and only one wins the Super Bowl each year. It doesn't mean that the other 31 are all bums.

Really good post. I just want to add that we see Pete adapting differently. I thought it was great that Pete brought in Waldron even with his limited experience because he is young and is adept with the current NFL trends from learning under McVay and all. I do think Pete did so because the writing was on the wall that his tired and worn out philosophy was just not going to make it anymore in todays game.

Until very recently, Pete has had a history of holding onto coaches for far to long that werent getting the job done and for trying to force his schemes when they werent working so I cant really agree with your comment that he had no trouble changing when in truth, he did. Lets not even bring up the lack of second half adjustments during his tenure, but thats for another day.

 

[AgentDib]

If you can make the playoffs then you can make a Super Bowl run.

After the fact, we tend to fall into the narrative fallacy to explain to ourselves why the team that won did so due to talent and scheme. The truth, however, is that injury luck, officiating luck, and simply randomness play a huge role.

Most sports fans like to discount the role of luck because they see it as the opposite of skill. However, high randomness in pro sports occurs when the differences in skill between opponents is narrow. If the best two chess players in the world are evenly matched then the outcome of their match is random, and that isn't an insult to either's skill level.

The NFL is great in large part due to how good the parity is between teams, and that leads to a situation where there are a ton of skilled players on both sides. That's why randomness is significant, the better team only wins 60% of the time, and we have the "any given Sunday" tropes.

 

[CallMeADawg]

Maybe I turn a blind eye or something, but isnt the player development belief from earlier years? All I tend to see now are players never being resigned after their rookie contracts and success stories when they move on to other teams.

I know my opinion of Pete Carroll isnt popular around here and i'm sorry I feel the way I do, but I have never liked him. I'm gracious to him for the Lombardi we have now, but I just cant see future success with him.

At least you admit it's a completely biased stance you have against Pete

 

[bileever]

Really good post. I just want to add that we see Pete adapting differently. I thought it was great that Pete brought in Waldron even with his limited experience because he is young and is adept with the current NFL trends from learning under McVay and all. I do think Pete did so because the writing was on the wall that his tired and worn out philosophy was just not going to make it anymore in todays game.

Until very recently, Pete has had a history of holding onto coaches for far to long that werent getting the job done and for trying to force his schemes when they werent working so I cant really agree with your comment that he had no trouble changing when in truth, he did. Lets not even bring up the lack of second half adjustments during his tenure, but thats for another day.

You're not wrong, especially in your other post about player development. There has been a lot that's gone wrong and so much failure on that score. You could be right, that it's a trend, and not just a few mistakes here and there. I might be more optimistic than you, but ultimately, you have to judge based on the results. Maybe we're both being premature, and we'll have to look at his entire record after Pete retires to really know.

 

[pittpnthrs]

At least you admit it's a completely biased stance you have against Pete

Isnt everybodys opinion biased? Your opinion is just as biased due to your stance too.