# of OCs and DCs Seahawks have had since SB win

[pittpnthrs]

That's my confusion. Although I know the answer, Pete's desperately trying to make his QB happy, and since the defense is his baby, he really doesn't care who the coordinator is as long as they run his system. Thus why Norton was here as long as he was.

I'm curious Sarge, can you elaborate a bit more about the offense and the trying to make the QB happy? I think we might be on the same page, but I dont want to misunderstand you before I comment.

Well if you're looking at our offense over the past 10 years, it's been a top 10 offense in just about every important metric.

TD's, scoring, yards, etc. And it's QB has been a top 10 QB, top 5 even some years in all those same metrics.

So why three coordinators in 4 years? Only logical answer is Russell even with all his success was still not happy with how the offense was being run, thus a new coordinator every year or two.

Why else would you fire a successful O-coordinator?

So you feel Russ was the cause of the OC's getting the axe? I'm more in the boat that they got the axe because they were scapegoats when the team failed in the post season under Carrolls guide. With the results you mentioned above, you dont just scrap an OC because your QB whines. If your getting results, it doesnt make sense.

This forum is split as to why the offense falls into 'Pete Ball' mode during stretches every single year. Some are now blaming Wilson for it while others believe its Carroll trumping the OC's vision. I believe its Carroll and thats why I have always said coordinators are meaningless in Seattle. Coordinators are put into bad situations in Seattle. They are left to run Petes philosophy and schemes every year with players that arent compatible with it a lot of the times and then they get the blame for why it doesnt work. When and if they do finally figure out how to use players in the right way, its too late because the damage has already been done and they get the hook.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

That's my confusion. Although I know the answer, Pete's desperately trying to make his QB happy, and since the defense is his baby, he really doesn't care who the coordinator is as long as they run his system. Thus why Norton was here as long as he was.

I'm curious Sarge, can you elaborate a bit more about the offense and the trying to make the QB happy? I think we might be on the same page, but I dont want to misunderstand you before I comment.

Well if you're looking at our offense over the past 10 years, it's been a top 10 offense in just about every important metric.

TD's, scoring, yards, etc. And it's QB has been a top 10 QB, top 5 even some years in all those same metrics.

So why three coordinators in 4 years? Only logical answer is Russell even with all his success was still not happy with how the offense was being run, thus a new coordinator every year or two.

Why else would you fire a successful O-coordinator?

So you feel Russ was the cause of the OC's getting the axe? I'm more in the boat that they got the axe because they were scapegoats when the team failed in the post season under Carrolls guide. With the results you mentioned above, you dont just scrap an OC because your QB whines. If your getting results, it doesnt make sense.

This forum is split as to why the offense falls into 'Pete Ball' mode during stretches every single year. Some are now blaming Wilson for it while others believe its Carroll trumping the OC's vision. I believe its Carroll and thats why I have always said coordinators are meaningless in Seattle. Coordinators are put into bad situations in Seattle. They are left to run Petes philosophy and schemes every year with players that arent compatible with it a lot of the times and then they get the blame for why it doesnt work. When and if they do finally figure out how to use players in the right way, its too late because the damage has already been done and they get the hook.

That's my point.

Even if you think there's some sort of forced dysfunction between Pete meddling in his O-coordinator's schemes and playcalling, it's still been a very successful offense.

So what's the one outlier as to why we keep getting new coordinators? Hmm, may not be the coach. Might just be the QB's still not happy.

Don't think it's a coincidence that before Russell got paid and became more powerful within the organization that we had the same coordinator for what, six years with Bevell?

Russell gets paid, starts chirping about being unhappy with not being able to cook, and voila, three coordinators in four years.

 

[ZagHawk]

All I know is if the Rams win, they will have 2 SB appearances and 1 win the same as JS and PC and all without a RW-tier QB. It puts a lot more pressure on JS and PC.

 

[bmorepunk]

There is the criticism when they don't fire the coordinators.

There is the criticism because they're not firing the coordinators.

The game is complicated so I don't actually know how much of success would have depended on the head coach, the coordinators, key players, etc. at any particular time. It seems wild to me that people are so completely sure they know where the "issues" are and have entire internal story lines in their head. Some of these might actually line up with reality.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

There is the criticism when they don't fire the coordinators.

There is the criticism because they're not firing the coordinators.

The game is complicated so I don't actually know how much of success would have depended on the head coach, the coordinators, key players, etc. at any particular time. It seems wild to me that people are so completely sure they know where the "issues" are and have entire internal story lines in their head. Some of these might actually line up with reality.

That's the confusing part for me. I don't claim to follow every other team's hirings and firings of coordinators, but I think it's fairly unique when we keep firing and hiring offensive O-coordinators when the offense has been as successful as it has for the past 5-6 years.

That's usually when you keep a guy, not fire him.

 

[John63]

So what is the relevance of that turn over?

How does it compare to the other 31 teams in the league?

What does the league's distribution curve look like?

Go figure it out, I don't have to. We have changed DC or oc every 1m5 years on avg. Same issues have existed. Only constant...PC

You should probably figure it out yourself if you actually want to be taken seriously.

Can't really neg Seattle on turnover frequency if you can't even prove that it's a higher turnover than the rest of the league on average, now can ya?

Think you'll be surprised by what you find.

Avg tenure for a DC or OC is 2.46 years
We are avg 1.5 Years and are easily the worst.
Avg for an NFL HC is 3.2 years
we are at 12

I can't find any current coaches with the amount of OC and DC turnover that we have had where the HC remained through it all. But after all our HC is also in charge of everything.

 

[John63]

So you feel Russ was the cause of the OC's getting the axe? I'm more in the boat that they got the axe because they were scapegoats when the team failed in the post season under Carrolls guide. With the results you mentioned above, you dont just scrap an OC because your QB whines. If your getting results, it doesnt make sense.

This forum is split as to why the offense falls into 'Pete Ball' mode during stretches every single year. Some are now blaming Wilson for it while others believe its Carroll trumping the OC's vision. I believe its Carroll and thats why I have always said coordinators are meaningless in Seattle. Coordinators are put into bad situations in Seattle. They are left to run Petes philosophy and schemes every year with players that arent compatible with it a lot of the times and then they get the blame for why it doesnt work. When and if they do finally figure out how to use players in the right way, its too late because the damage has already been done and they get the hook.

THIS^^^

Look it came from PC's own mouth after game 1 of this past Season. From PCs own book. We have heard it form KJ, Olsen, Marshall, and several others. Heck players we face have been saying for years under multiple OCs the offense is predictable. The problem is that those of us who tend to defend Wilson are more than willing to acknowledge he is not perfect. However, those who think PC is some deity they refuse to acknowledge any short coming in PC.

 

[Jville]

So what is the relevance of that turn over?

How does it compare to the other 31 teams in the league?

What does the league's distribution curve look like?

Go figure it out, I don't have to. We have changed DC or oc every 1m5 years on avg. Same issues have existed. Only constant...PC

You should probably figure it out yourself if you actually want to be taken seriously.

Can't really neg Seattle on turnover frequency if you can't even prove that it's a higher turnover than the rest of the league on average, now can ya?

Think you'll be surprised by what you find.

Avg tenure for a DC or OC is 2.46 years
We are avg 1.5 Years and are easily the worst.
Avg for an NFL HC is 3.2 years
we are at 12

I can't find any current coaches with the amount of OC and DC turnover that we have had where the HC remained through it all. But after all our HC is also in charge of everything.

So what does that mean?

Where does the relevance reside? Wouldn't a coach that takes joy in providing coaching opportunities and opportunities to grow into the best they can be tend to be more accommodating of staff turn over?

 

[John63]

Go figure it out, I don't have to. We have changed DC or oc every 1m5 years on avg. Same issues have existed. Only constant...PC

You should probably figure it out yourself if you actually want to be taken seriously.

Can't really neg Seattle on turnover frequency if you can't even prove that it's a higher turnover than the rest of the league on average, now can ya?

Think you'll be surprised by what you find.

Avg tenure for a DC or OC is 2.46 years
We are avg 1.5 Years and are easily the worst.
Avg for an NFL HC is 3.2 years
we are at 12

I can't find any current coaches with the amount of OC and DC turnover that we have had where the HC remained through it all. But after all our HC is also in charge of everything.

So what does that mean?

Where does the relevance reside? Wouldn't a coach that takes joy in providing coaching opportunities and opportunities to grow into the best they can be tend to be more accommodating of staff turn over?

that's one spin expect that would mean he cares little for the way the constant turnstile of DC and OC has on the team.
we also concluded most were fired. We also know little changed from OC to OC and DC to DC. yet the one constant PC remains. I am sure some will find a way but there is no way to spin this as good.

Either they are being used as scapegoats as everything goes the WAY PC wants, in which case he is the problem.
Or PC is a horrible HC when it comes to hiring OC and DC in which case he is the problem.

Sorry, any attempt to spin this would be laughable.

 

[Jville]

You should probably figure it out yourself if you actually want to be taken seriously.

Can't really neg Seattle on turnover frequency if you can't even prove that it's a higher turnover than the rest of the league on average, now can ya?

Think you'll be surprised by what you find.

Avg tenure for a DC or OC is 2.46 years
We are avg 1.5 Years and are easily the worst.
Avg for an NFL HC is 3.2 years
we are at 12

I can't find any current coaches with the amount of OC and DC turnover that we have had where the HC remained through it all. But after all our HC is also in charge of everything.

So what does that mean?

Where does the relevance reside? Wouldn't a coach that takes joy in providing coaching opportunities and opportunities to grow into the best they can be tend to be more accommodating of staff turn over?

that's one spin expect that would mean he cares little for the way the constant turnstile of DC and OC has on the team.
we also concluded most were fired. We also know little changed from OC to OC and DC to DC. yet the one constant PC remains. I am sure some will find a way but there is no way to spin this as good.

Either they are being used as scapegoats as everything goes the WAY PC wants, in which case he is the problem.
Or PC is a horrible HC when it comes to hiring OC and DC in which case he is the problem.

Sorry, any attempt to spin this would be laughable.

Who is scapegoating who?

I understand your affection for "what".

Isn't 'why' also relevant for depth of understanding?

 

[John63]

Avg tenure for a DC or OC is 2.46 years
We are avg 1.5 Years and are easily the worst.
Avg for an NFL HC is 3.2 years
we are at 12

I can't find any current coaches with the amount of OC and DC turnover that we have had where the HC remained through it all. But after all our HC is also in charge of everything.

So what does that mean?

Where does the relevance reside? Wouldn't a coach that takes joy in providing coaching opportunities and opportunities to grow into the best they can be tend to be more accommodating of staff turn over?

that's one spin expect that would mean he cares little for the way the constant turnstile of DC and OC has on the team.
we also concluded most were fired. We also know little changed from OC to OC and DC to DC. yet the one constant PC remains. I am sure some will find a way but there is no way to spin this as good.

Either they are being used as scapegoats as everything goes the WAY PC wants, in which case he is the problem.
Or PC is a horrible HC when it comes to hiring OC and DC in which case he is the problem.

Sorry, any attempt to spin this would be laughable.

Who is scapegoating who?

I understand your affection for "what".

Isn't 'why' also relevant for depth of understanding?

The why can be important but the Why is also self-evident unless you cant add 2+2 or you choose not to.

S0 we have pretty much run the same offense and defensive philosophy (except for the last 2 games and sporadic times) but 80-90% it been the same). DCs and OCs have come and gone but the system for the most part remains the same and with the exception of a 2-3 year period where we had perhaps the most talent per position ever. We had the advantage due to the fact that PC had inside knowledge of these players having just left College. That advantage no longer exists. We have failed to get beyond the 1st round in years and again OCs and Dcs have come and gone.

So either the

PC is bad at hiring OCs and DCs in which case he is the problem
Or his system doe snot work any longer and he is the problem
Or he does not know how to draft or sign Fas in which case he si the problem.

As KJ, Olden, and many others have said everything happens the way PC wants there for the responsibility also goes to PC, and in the last 5 years it's been bad.

Now as to your Why it simple he is an older coach set in his ways and with nearly absolute power he can do what he wants. he would not be the first HC to do it that way and will not be the last.

That said if the last 2 games become the norm then perhaps she has seen or been shown the light.

 

[Jville]

So what does that mean?

Where does the relevance reside? Wouldn't a coach that takes joy in providing coaching opportunities and opportunities to grow into the best they can be tend to be more accommodating of staff turn over?

that's one spin expect that would mean he cares little for the way the constant turnstile of DC and OC has on the team.
we also concluded most were fired. We also know little changed from OC to OC and DC to DC. yet the one constant PC remains. I am sure some will find a way but there is no way to spin this as good.

Either they are being used as scapegoats as everything goes the WAY PC wants, in which case he is the problem.
Or PC is a horrible HC when it comes to hiring OC and DC in which case he is the problem.

Sorry, any attempt to spin this would be laughable.

Who is scapegoating who?

I understand your affection for "what".

Isn't 'why' also relevant for depth of understanding?

The why can be important but the Why is also self-evident unless you cant add 2+2 or you choose not to.

S0 we have pretty much run the same offense and defensive philosophy (except for the last 2 games and sporadic times) but 80-90% it been the same). DCs and OCs have come and gone but the system for the most part remains the same and with the exception of a 2-3 year period where we had perhaps the most talent per position ever. We had the advantage due to the fact that PC had inside knowledge of these players having just left College. That advantage no longer exists. We have failed to get beyond the 1st round in years and again OCs and Dcs have come and gone.

So either the

PC is bad at hiring OCs and DCs in which case he is the problem
Or his system doe snot work any longer and he is the problem
Or he does not know how to draft or sign Fas in which case he si the problem.

As KJ, Olden, and many others have said everything happens the way PC wants there for the responsibility also goes to PC, and in the last 5 years it's been bad.

Now as to your Why it simple he is an older coach set in his ways and with nearly absolute power he can do what he wants. he would not be the first HC to do it that way and will not be the last.

That said if the last 2 games become the norm then perhaps she has seen or been shown the light.

Aren't your objections to age and delegated authority a form of scapegoating? A diversion from why?

Have you not recognized varying schemes and varying play calls driven by ever changing match ups, injury and roster churn?

Do you not appreciate the competition, evolving league trends and the seasonal impact of NFL rule changes?

So what about why?

 

[John63]

that's one spin expect that would mean he cares little for the way the constant turnstile of DC and OC has on the team.
we also concluded most were fired. We also know little changed from OC to OC and DC to DC. yet the one constant PC remains. I am sure some will find a way but there is no way to spin this as good.

Either they are being used as scapegoats as everything goes the WAY PC wants, in which case he is the problem.
Or PC is a horrible HC when it comes to hiring OC and DC in which case he is the problem.

Sorry, any attempt to spin this would be laughable.

Who is scapegoating who?

I understand your affection for "what".

Isn't 'why' also relevant for depth of understanding?

The why can be important but the Why is also self-evident unless you cant add 2+2 or you choose not to.

S0 we have pretty much run the same offense and defensive philosophy (except for the last 2 games and sporadic times) but 80-90% it been the same). DCs and OCs have come and gone but the system for the most part remains the same and with the exception of a 2-3 year period where we had perhaps the most talent per position ever. We had the advantage due to the fact that PC had inside knowledge of these players having just left College. That advantage no longer exists. We have failed to get beyond the 1st round in years and again OCs and Dcs have come and gone.

So either the

PC is bad at hiring OCs and DCs in which case he is the problem
Or his system doe snot work any longer and he is the problem
Or he does not know how to draft or sign Fas in which case he si the problem.

As KJ, Olden, and many others have said everything happens the way PC wants there for the responsibility also goes to PC, and in the last 5 years it's been bad.

Now as to your Why it simple he is an older coach set in his ways and with nearly absolute power he can do what he wants. he would not be the first HC to do it that way and will not be the last.

That said if the last 2 games become the norm then perhaps she has seen or been shown the light.

Aren't your objections to age and delegated authority a form of scapegoating? A diversion from why?

Have you not recognized varying schemes and varying play calls driven by ever changing match ups, injury and roster churn?

Do you not appreciate the competition, evolving league trends and the seasonal impact of NFL rule changes?

So what about why?

so at this point, it appears you want to muddy the waters a lot and ignore the facts. So let's go with

we agree to disagree.

 

[Jville]

Who is scapegoating who?

I understand your affection for "what".

Isn't 'why' also relevant for depth of understanding?

The why can be important but the Why is also self-evident unless you cant add 2+2 or you choose not to.

S0 we have pretty much run the same offense and defensive philosophy (except for the last 2 games and sporadic times) but 80-90% it been the same). DCs and OCs have come and gone but the system for the most part remains the same and with the exception of a 2-3 year period where we had perhaps the most talent per position ever. We had the advantage due to the fact that PC had inside knowledge of these players having just left College. That advantage no longer exists. We have failed to get beyond the 1st round in years and again OCs and Dcs have come and gone.

So either the

PC is bad at hiring OCs and DCs in which case he is the problem
Or his system doe snot work any longer and he is the problem
Or he does not know how to draft or sign Fas in which case he si the problem.

As KJ, Olden, and many others have said everything happens the way PC wants there for the responsibility also goes to PC, and in the last 5 years it's been bad.

Now as to your Why it simple he is an older coach set in his ways and with nearly absolute power he can do what he wants. he would not be the first HC to do it that way and will not be the last.

That said if the last 2 games become the norm then perhaps she has seen or been shown the light.

Aren't your objections to age and delegated authority a form of scapegoating? A diversion from why?

Have you not recognized varying schemes and varying play calls driven by ever changing match ups, injury and roster churn?

Do you not appreciate the competition, evolving league trends and the seasonal impact of NFL rule changes?

So what about why?

so at this point, it appears you want to muddy the waters a lot and ignore the facts. So let's go with

we agree to disagree.

That's disappointing.

What, when, where, why and how are all fundamental to information exchange.

 

[John63]

The why can be important but the Why is also self-evident unless you cant add 2+2 or you choose not to.

S0 we have pretty much run the same offense and defensive philosophy (except for the last 2 games and sporadic times) but 80-90% it been the same). DCs and OCs have come and gone but the system for the most part remains the same and with the exception of a 2-3 year period where we had perhaps the most talent per position ever. We had the advantage due to the fact that PC had inside knowledge of these players having just left College. That advantage no longer exists. We have failed to get beyond the 1st round in years and again OCs and Dcs have come and gone.

So either the

PC is bad at hiring OCs and DCs in which case he is the problem
Or his system doe snot work any longer and he is the problem
Or he does not know how to draft or sign Fas in which case he si the problem.

As KJ, Olden, and many others have said everything happens the way PC wants there for the responsibility also goes to PC, and in the last 5 years it's been bad.

Now as to your Why it simple he is an older coach set in his ways and with nearly absolute power he can do what he wants. he would not be the first HC to do it that way and will not be the last.

That said if the last 2 games become the norm then perhaps she has seen or been shown the light.

Aren't your objections to age and delegated authority a form of scapegoating? A diversion from why?

Have you not recognized varying schemes and varying play calls driven by ever changing match ups, injury and roster churn?

Do you not appreciate the competition, evolving league trends and the seasonal impact of NFL rule changes?

So what about why?

so at this point, it appears you want to muddy the waters a lot and ignore the facts. So let's go with

we agree to disagree.

That's disappointing.

What, when, where, why and how are all fundamental to information exchange.

only to you, I have laid it out plain as day but you don't like what it shows so you are trying to muddy the waters. I get it you have made your stance clear

PC is a god he has all the power and control but nothing is his fault we get it. we just don't agree and the facts support us even in your muddied water.

 

[Jville]

Aren't your objections to age and delegated authority a form of scapegoating? A diversion from why?

Have you not recognized varying schemes and varying play calls driven by ever changing match ups, injury and roster churn?

Do you not appreciate the competition, evolving league trends and the seasonal impact of NFL rule changes?

So what about why?

so at this point, it appears you want to muddy the waters a lot and ignore the facts. So let's go with

we agree to disagree.

That's disappointing.

What, when, where, why and how are all fundamental to information exchange.

only to you, I have laid it out plain as day but you don't like what it shows so you are trying to muddy the waters. I get it you have made your stance clear

PC is a god he has all the power and control but nothing is his fault we get it. we just don't agree and the facts support us even in your muddied water.

:34853_doh: Two scapegoats in the same post.

Too be included with Pete Carroll was unexpected.

 

[pittpnthrs]

That's my point.

Even if you think there's some sort of forced dysfunction between Pete meddling in his O-coordinator's schemes and playcalling, it's still been a very successful offense.

So what's the one outlier as to why we keep getting new coordinators? Hmm, may not be the coach. Might just be the QB's still not happy.

Don't think it's a coincidence that before Russell got paid and became more powerful within the organization that we had the same coordinator for what, six years with Bevell?

Russell gets paid, starts chirping about being unhappy with not being able to cook, and voila, three coordinators in four years.

Guess i'm confused too. Why would the QB get upset at the coordinators when the offense always falls into the same predictability at some point rather than the HC? Its almost a role reversal situation. Wilson cant be fooled into thinking things are going to change everytime Carroll pulls the 52 card pickup deal with the OC's. I'm pretty sure he realizes its Pete and thats why he's piping up the last couple of years. While former players are no longer concerned about speaking up, Russ is still trying to be discrete about it to a point as to not tarnish anyones character.

As for Bevell, he was nothing more than a mediocre OC that proved he couldnt get the job done after he and Pete ran off a potential dynasty after the Super Bowl 49 travesty. He was kept way too long, but it was no shock when he got the axe because it was years overdue. Did Wilson have any influence on that firing? I doubt it.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

That's my point.

Even if you think there's some sort of forced dysfunction between Pete meddling in his O-coordinator's schemes and playcalling, it's still been a very successful offense.

So what's the one outlier as to why we keep getting new coordinators? Hmm, may not be the coach. Might just be the QB's still not happy.

Don't think it's a coincidence that before Russell got paid and became more powerful within the organization that we had the same coordinator for what, six years with Bevell?

Russell gets paid, starts chirping about being unhappy with not being able to cook, and voila, three coordinators in four years.

Guess i'm confused too. Why would the QB get upset at the coordinators when the offense always falls into the same predictability at some point rather than the HC? Its almost a role reversal situation. Wilson cant be fooled into thinking things are going to change everytime Carroll pulls the 52 card pickup deal with the OC's. I'm pretty sure he realizes its Pete and thats why he's piping up the last couple of years. While former players are no longer concerned about speaking up, Russ is still trying to be discrete about it to a point as to not tarnish anyones character.

As for Bevell, he was nothing more than a mediocre OC that proved he couldnt get the job done after he and Pete ran off a potential dynasty after the Super Bowl 49 travesty. He was kept way too long, but it was no shock when he got the axe because it was years overdue. Did Wilson have any influence on that firing? I doubt it.

You keep putting down the offense and coordinators, but the Hawk's offense has been a top 10 scoring offense since what, 2014? 2015?

The other 22 franchises would love to fall into that sort of predictability if it meant averaging almost 30 pts a game or more.

You still haven't answered my question. Why would we fire offensive coordinators who had this kind of success?

That's not Pete's style. If anything he loyal to a fault, especially with coaches who are having success.

I know you're desperately trying to not to involve Russell into this equation. But sorry man, he's the reason. Period. There's no other explanation. You don't fire successful coordinators unless your coach or QB isn't happy with them.............and it isn't Pete.

 

[pittpnthrs]

That's my point.

Even if you think there's some sort of forced dysfunction between Pete meddling in his O-coordinator's schemes and playcalling, it's still been a very successful offense.

So what's the one outlier as to why we keep getting new coordinators? Hmm, may not be the coach. Might just be the QB's still not happy.

Don't think it's a coincidence that before Russell got paid and became more powerful within the organization that we had the same coordinator for what, six years with Bevell?

Russell gets paid, starts chirping about being unhappy with not being able to cook, and voila, three coordinators in four years.

Guess i'm confused too. Why would the QB get upset at the coordinators when the offense always falls into the same predictability at some point rather than the HC? Its almost a role reversal situation. Wilson cant be fooled into thinking things are going to change everytime Carroll pulls the 52 card pickup deal with the OC's. I'm pretty sure he realizes its Pete and thats why he's piping up the last couple of years. While former players are no longer concerned about speaking up, Russ is still trying to be discrete about it to a point as to not tarnish anyones character.

As for Bevell, he was nothing more than a mediocre OC that proved he couldnt get the job done after he and Pete ran off a potential dynasty after the Super Bowl 49 travesty. He was kept way too long, but it was no shock when he got the axe because it was years overdue. Did Wilson have any influence on that firing? I doubt it.

You keep putting down the offense and coordinators, but the Hawk's offense has been a top 10 scoring offense since what, 2014? 2015?

The other 22 franchises would love to fall into that sort of predictability if it meant averaging almost 30 pts a game or more.

You still haven't answered my question. Why would we fire offensive coordinators who had this kind of success?

That's not Pete's style. If anything he loyal to a fault, especially with coaches who are having success.

I know you're desperately trying to not to involve Russell into this equation. But sorry man, he's the reason. Period. There's no other explanation. You don't fire successful coordinators unless your coach or QB isn't happy with them.............and it isn't Pete.

I'm actually trying to point out that Wilson has been just that damn good to be able to push a handicapped offense at times to those type of numbers over the years.

To answer your questions about the OC firings, here's my take. Bates was obvious. Bevell was the ultimate Pete 'Yes Man' that finally got canned when Pete felt pressure due to the lack of post season success. Add the ridicule of not firing him immediately after the Super Bowl and there you have it. Pete just couldnt keep him any longer and had to get rid of him. Now Schotty is a different beast all together. While i'm not a big fan of his, he did gain my respect. I honestly think he and Pete butted heads because Schotty was a bit defiant. I think he pretty much told Pete to let him do his job the way he wanted to or to let him go. That wasnt going to fly thus the firing. Thats my take on the whole situation.

It is Pete

 

[John63]

That's my point.

Even if you think there's some sort of forced dysfunction between Pete meddling in his O-coordinator's schemes and playcalling, it's still been a very successful offense.

So what's the one outlier as to why we keep getting new coordinators? Hmm, may not be the coach. Might just be the QB's still not happy.

Don't think it's a coincidence that before Russell got paid and became more powerful within the organization that we had the same coordinator for what, six years with Bevell?

Russell gets paid, starts chirping about being unhappy with not being able to cook, and voila, three coordinators in four years.

Guess i'm confused too. Why would the QB get upset at the coordinators when the offense always falls into the same predictability at some point rather than the HC? Its almost a role reversal situation. Wilson cant be fooled into thinking things are going to change everytime Carroll pulls the 52 card pickup deal with the OC's. I'm pretty sure he realizes its Pete and thats why he's piping up the last couple of years. While former players are no longer concerned about speaking up, Russ is still trying to be discrete about it to a point as to not tarnish anyones character.

As for Bevell, he was nothing more than a mediocre OC that proved he couldnt get the job done after he and Pete ran off a potential dynasty after the Super Bowl 49 travesty. He was kept way too long, but it was no shock when he got the axe because it was years overdue. Did Wilson have any influence on that firing? I doubt it.

You keep putting down the offense and coordinators, but the Hawk's offense has been a top 10 scoring offense since what, 2014? 2015?

The other 22 franchises would love to fall into that sort of predictability if it meant averaging almost 30 pts a game or more.

You still haven't answered my question. Why would we fire offensive coordinators who had this kind of success?

That's not Pete's style. If anything he loyal to a fault, especially with coaches who are having success.

I know you're desperately trying to not to involve Russell into this equation. But sorry man, he's the reason. Period. There's no other explanation. You don't fire successful coordinators unless your coach or QB isn't happy with them.............and it isn't Pete.

Actually, that is incorrect as PC said he fired Schotty for a difference of opinion on the offense. Bevel was the sacrificial lamb for the 2nd sb loss.

has KJ and a lot players have said everything happens the way PC wants it. There has been tension between Wilson and PC. As to why he keeps changing OCs well maybe he also keeps promising Wilson he will stay out of it only to well get invovled.

as to our top 10 offense since 2015

lets eee
2010 28th in yards 23rd in points
2011 28th in yards, 23rd in points
2012 17th yards, 8th in points
2013 18th in yards 9th in points
2014 9th in yards, 10th in points
2015 ranked 4th in yards, 5th in scoring
2016 18th in yards, 14th in scoring
2017 15th in yards, 12th in points (This is the year Wilson did it all, was the only QB in NFL history to make up over 80% of the yards and over 95% of the offensive Tds) If only he had help.
2018 18th in yards 8th in points
2019 8th in yards, 9th in points
2020 17th in yads, 7th in points,
2021 20th in yards, 16th points,

So out of all the time PC has been here our offense ranked top 10 in scoring and yards 3 times.

That given our QBs over that time avg under 30 attempts a game. Our run game avg under 30 a game as well. That is not on avg enough attempts to avg being top 10 in both often. Given we know PC wants to run, eat up clock etc that style limits attempts, and relies on the defense to keep it close. These are PCs words. He has said he wants to run, control the clock, throw long, keep it close and win in the 4th. Problem is that leaves little room for error, and requires a magician at Qb and a historic defense. we only have 1 of them now. He knows this and refuses to adjust, well not counting the last 2 games. I am hoping he has learned and those last 2 games will be the norm. But we will see.