Pete Carroll

[Ad Hawk]

Just trying to figure out who some of you think you are on here? You're posters with opinions just like the rest of us, and guess what, not everybody agrees with you.r opinions.

I've been calling for Petes head for 3 years now and could care less what you think of it. I don't like his coaching style , never have since SC. I appreciate the SB win, blame him whole heartedly for the SB loss, and the decline of the team in the years after. So flame away, I'm sure I'll find a way to go on with life..

Well, that's funny isn't it? You don't like his coaching style, yet he's the only one who's ever given the Hawks fans a SB win to appreciate and celebrate. I blame him completely for that win. :lol: Kind of a tough pill to swallow for you, huh? But it's a positive that you see at least some value in it. . .

It's perfect that whatever coaching style you do like isn't Pete's. This last decade as a whole has included the most entertaining Seahawks football ever.

Your opinion will continue to be flamed as long as you (and others) call for the winning-est coach in Seahawks History to be fired; it disguises you--a fan, supposedly--as a troll, even if your intentions are good. I guess you'll deserve every bit of what you get. :229031_shrug:

 

[pittpnthrs]

Detroit sucks?

Vikings? Packers? Do they suck too?

This place....

They lost to the Jets, 49ers, and Cowboys and are now trading their best players. They arent good.

Packers have issues. They have a HoF QB and thats about it. They just traded Pro Bowl Safety Clinton-Dix and Ty Montgomery and seem confused. They will beat people based on Rodgers alone, but they are down this year.

Vikings will end up being the best team in that division when the dust clears, but they are finding themselves right now with Cousins and they still beat the teams they should for the most part (Bills game was an anomaly). They will be hard to beat.

 

[hawknation2018]

Can't wait to see the Hawks beat a very good Chargers team on Sunday. Only to come on here on Monday and have Pitt tell us all that the Chargers suck. And, that we will know who we are in the next few games.
:2thumbs:

What are you talking about? The Chargers are definitely better than any of the teams we have beaten so far. If we win,,,,,thats great. If not, no surprise.

If we lose, the excuses will be entertaining though. I'm trying to imagine what you'll blame it on,,,,,injuries, coaching, weather, youth, emotions, etc,,,,. Its never a better team beating us. We beat ourselves is always the answer.

If the Seahawks win, someone will look like,,,, :moon.:

 

[jammerhawk]

They had a huge amount of question marks coming into this season, Pete sticking his nose in the offense was a problem, Cables system and coaching was a problem, Bevell's play calling and noodle back bone was a problem. Pissed off players due to the previous issues were a problem, Letting pissed of players go was looked at as a problem due to who would be replacing them then we had injured players, not just injured but career ending injured players.


Just about every one of those problems have been fixed with maybe the exception of the depth we have, that will come. With all those issues and changes and where we are and what we have shown how can anyone say we have a Front Office or head coaching issue ?

Good Post!

Pete isn’t perfect, nor is the FO, but they are still doing it better than it’s ever been done here before.

I was very happy with what I saw on Sunday and hope the team can keep it going and get stronger. I have little reason to think they won’t t get better.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Can't wait to see the Hawks beat a very good Chargers team on Sunday. Only to come on here on Monday and have Pitt tell us all that the Chargers suck. And, that we will know who we are in the next few games.
:2thumbs:

What are you talking about? The Chargers are definitely better than any of the teams we have beaten so far. If we win,,,,,thats great. If not, no surprise.

If we lose, the excuses will be entertaining though. I'm trying to imagine what you'll blame it on,,,,,injuries, coaching, weather, youth, emotions, etc,,,,. Its never a better team beating us. We beat ourselves is always the answer.

If the Seahawks win, someone will look like,,,, :moon.:

If the Seahawks win then they will finally have beaten a decent team which will be great. Nothing more.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And there we have it. Already making excuses or downplaying why/how the Hawks will win. It's clearly NEVER because they are just a really good football team. Fair enough. Is it that hard for you to enjoy something? Like a win, regardless who they play????

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Vikings will end up being the best team in that division when the dust clears, but they are finding themselves right now with Cousins and they still beat the teams they should for the most part (Bills game was an anomaly). They will be hard to beat.

Again weird that you'll give other teams a pass but don't extend the same generosity to your own team?

NO ONE who watched the Hawks game and Vikings game this past weekend would say that the Vikings look like a better team than the Hawks at this point in the season. Two straight losses at home, one to arguably the worst team in the league, and the Saints made them look like they didn't even belong on the same field.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Good point. Making excuses for losses for other teams. All while downplaying wins for your own team? :?

 

[Seymour]

And there we have it. Already making excuses or downplaying why/how the Hawks will win. It's clearly NEVER because they are just a really good football team. Fair enough. Is it that hard for you to enjoy something? Like a win, regardless who they play????

Speaking of which....been awhile since I felt compelled to re-watch a game for fun but the Detroit game is a great rainy day re-watch suggestion. I enjoyed it even more the 2nd time around!! :irishdrinkers: :2thumbs:

 

[capncrunch]

Calling for him to be fired and saying the game had passed him by was wrong. Disparagingly referring to “Pete Ball” was wrong.

This isn't what people are referring to as "Pete Ball". Pete ball an offensive philosophy that ignored the short and immediate routes for low percentage long balls. That is what we played since 2015. This brand of football is distinctly different from even our Super Bowl winning ball. Lot of under the center running/passing, and motion that wasn't there before before. Our usage of TE's has also been completely different under Schottenheimer. We're also using a lot more short routes. Our offense is starting to look much different than anything under Bevell or Bates. I wonder if more control was given to Schottenheimer?

The thing with Pete that you always have to look out for though is a regression to the mean. Carroll always has the tendency to go back to the fk it im going deep sort of offense. His deal is he just needs to stay out of the offense and let his offensive coordinator handle things. When he does that we're fine, when he interferes we can't get out of our own way. Most people don't mind a run dominated offense, what they do mind is a passing game that ignores everything but one aspect, an offense that lacks nuance. That isn't this offense right now.

Wow. This is a very insightful post. Let's see how a few more games play out, but yes, I think Schottenheimer has a different take on the run first offense than what we saw before. We're putting up a lot of points. Pete's not perfect but I like him as a coach and am thrilled with what the team has accomplished this season.

 

[Seymour]

This is not Pete ball, and not what Carroll has been doing for years. "Pete Ball" was a moniker that was used to mock his offenses. He was abandoning the run even when it was working, and using long developing plays, and deep passes. He was also completely ignoring the play action until the RAMS games. Right now we're running the ball close to 60 percent of the time, and we're using a lot of short passes to move the chains. This is the antithesis to what Pete has been doing since 2015 and to some extent 2014. This looks more like Holmgren during 2005, and less like an offense that belongs in the 70s.

I will attest to this! I was the first here to coin the phrase "Pete Ball" (here) and that is exactly what myself and others were talking about.
Don't need to dwell as Pete is finally letting go of that sad notion, but to be clear, that is exactly what people are talking about when they say "Pete Ball"....being hell bent to throw deep when you have no time to do so = 3 and out.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Nice, finishing up my replay as well. I usually will chip away at a replay as the week goes on after wins. Funny how much stuff I see, when it's after the fact, in a game I just watched a few days prior.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Vikings will end up being the best team in that division when the dust clears, but they are finding themselves right now with Cousins and they still beat the teams they should for the most part (Bills game was an anomaly). They will be hard to beat.

Again weird that you'll give other teams a pass but don't extend the same generosity to your own team?

NO ONE who watched the Hawks game and Vikings game this past weekend would say that the Vikings look like a better team than the Hawks at this point in the season. Two straight losses at home, one to arguably the worst team in the league, and the Saints made them look like they didn't even belong on the same field.

What are you expecting or want me to say, that I think the Seahawks are awesome and going to the Super Bowl or something? Sorry I hold the Vikings in a higher esteem than Seattle right now. Losing to the Saints is a bad showing? My God, they are 6-1 right now. How about Seattle barely beating the Cardinals? Vikings did a lot better against them than we did. We lost to the Broncos who are wretched this year. We beat up on the worst team in the league in the Raiders (not arguably) and beat the hapless Cowboys. Our best showing this year is barely losing to the Rams (something the Vikings have also done) and beating a Lions team that seems to be packing it in already this season. All i'm asking is for Seattle to beat a decent team before I label them good or on those lines. Is that so bad? If they win 2 or 3 out of their next 4 games then yes, I will look at them in a different light. Until then, prove something first.

 

[Fade]

 

[pittpnthrs]

Here tell me which list has the Seahawks listed higher than the Vikings.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nfl+pow ... e&ie=UTF-8

Wonder why that is?

 

[Fade]

Here tell me which list has the Seahawks listed higher than the Vikings.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nfl+pow ... e&ie=UTF-8

Wonder why that is?

Here is some info that I find quite interesting.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff
OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA are adjusted based on strength of opponent as well as to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. (Opponent adjustments are currently at 80 percent strength and will go up every week, reaching full strength after Week 10.) SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season.

Seahawks #6 > Vikings #18

The Vikings are an average team this year. Their O-Line is a disaster and their defense has taken a step back. Kirk also wilts in big moments, and has a horrible record against winning teams. I like Kirk, but it is what it is.

The Vikings are going to miss the playoffs.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And come Dec. 10th, we'll send them home with a big L. But I'm sure it won't be because the Hawks are good. It will be because the game is at home and on Monday night. Or the Vikes are missing players etc.

 

[pittpnthrs]

And there we have it. Already making excuses or downplaying why/how the Hawks will win. It's clearly NEVER because they are just a really good football team. Fair enough. Is it that hard for you to enjoy something? Like a win, regardless who they play????

Not downplaying anything. I never guaranteed anything on either side either. If Seattle wins, great they have something going. If they lose, oh well, something to build off of. Regardless of the outcome, I refuse to have the wool pulled over my eyes, like so many others seem to have let happen, this early.

 

[Fade]

Here tell me which list has the Seahawks listed higher than the Vikings.

https://www.google.com/search?q=nfl+pow ... e&ie=UTF-8

Wonder why that is?

Here is some info that I find quite interesting.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff
OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA are adjusted based on strength of opponent as well as to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. (Opponent adjustments are currently at 80 percent strength and will go up every week, reaching full strength after Week 10.) SPECIAL TEAMS DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver) and week of season.

Seahawks #6 > Vikings #18

The Vikings are an average team this year. Their O-Line is a disaster and their defense has taken a step back. Kirk also wilts in big moments, and has a horrible record against winning teams. I like Kirk, but it is what it is.

The Vikings are going to miss the playoffs.

 

[pittpnthrs]

The Vikings are going to miss the playoffs.

Nah, if Cousins stays healthy, they'll make it.