This reply is going to be absolutely exhausting.
First of all, good morning.
Second of all, is this a joke?
Good evening.
No, it's not a joke.
(Not the keeping Pete part. But formulating actual coaches that fit what Pete wants to do and know his west coast system, and 3 deep zone defense.)
To be fair, the scheme is more varied than just 3 deep zone. Karl Scott can attest to that one, having a background with Saban and all. I'm sure you've seen his explainers on the cover 7 stuff they used to run at 'Bama, being the junkie you are for this stuff.
Your OC list makes no sense. Greg Roman is nothing like Frank Reich schematically. They are polar opposites.
It seems you have no style of play in mind, and no understanding of offensive systems, just throwing out names. It reads like a spaghetti thrown at the wall list.
I don't know if you have ever coached. I have (Not football.)
Yes, I have coached, but also have not coached football.
This criticism reads as extremely odd to me, because I'm not really sure what you think my list is. It's just a shortlist of names that I'd like to see eventually considered for OC in my scenario. I'm not saying that they're schematically similar. I just think they're all promising coaches that I wouldn't hate seeing here.
The claim here isn't that Greg Roman and Frank Reich are remotely similar in terms of scheme. I have no idea how you're reading that. I'd be excited for Reich because he's a veteran playcaller with proven success. I'd be excited for Roman because it'd indicate a desire to move the chains on the ground and acquire a dual threat quarterback. I'd be excited for Patullo because he has experience on a staff that molded Jalen Hurts from a clunky, ineffective college quarterback into a quarter billion dollar star and uses his dual threat capabilities to excellent effect.
I have different, unique reasons that I, AS A FAN, would be excited to have each shortlisted candidate coach here. Nothing more. I know they have different systems. I'm not an idiot when it comes to the game, as much as you may want to insinuate that.
Defensive coaches that are not in Pete's realm of things are off the list automatically. Philosophical differences.
Then the guy's that have pelts on the wall, and want to run things their way are also off the list because they can easily go to other situations where they have control. Your Fangio's of the world, etc.
It's not an accident that the last 3 DCs have been "Yes" men, Pete stooges. Even going back to Gus Bradley. He was a Monty Kiffin disciple the same as Pete. Quinn just happened to be on staff when Pete arrived and Bradley signed off on him. Essentially lucking into him. No legitimate DC would ever accept operating under Pete's thumb. With Pete all you get are cronies. This is what you are left with. As Pete clearly wants to run his soft 3 deep zone come hell or high water.
I agree that defensive coaches with too much of a gulf between Pete's background and their own aren't going to be considered, which is why I included Joe Whitt Jr. on the list, who they already wanted to interview a couple of years ago and has shown an ability to consistently create playmakers in the Dallas secondary. Jesse Minter is more of a wildcard option from the college ranks that'd bring about some additional change to the coverage scheme, likely bringing more quarters coverage.
Dan Quinn was on staff for one season under Carroll in 2010, and left to become a DC at Florida. Going to get him to replace Bradley is still a move that deserves credit. Can we be even
a little bit balanced and fair here? Give credit where it's due instead of bending over backwards to shit on even sound decisions.
This team drafted for change, only to fall back into the same old dinosaur scheme. It's been horrific to watch if you know football. The scouts have to be tearing their hair out, at this juncture.
They didn't draft for change. They drafted players that fit what they're doing currently, outside of JSN, who Pete agrees should be targeted more. Witherspoon fits pretty much any defensive scheme and looks great here, the O-linemen they drafted are scheme versatile... I think they drafted more to have good, young players than they did to any specific change or scheme. And yes, this season has been horrific to watch, I agree. We have... some different takes about where the functional issues come from, which is why I'm advocating for what I'm advocating for. You hide it well with your popular Pete hatred, but your opinion on Waldron's tenure is desperately unpopular, and I think that he's responsible for a lot more of the issues this team has than you do. Side note - Hurtt, I generally agree. I think he was a bad hire at coordinator, which is disappointing, because he's a good line coach.
The final, but not likely category would be desperate failures. Guys out of the league, and just desperate to get back in. (Willing to compromise their system for Pete. That was Schotty, as it was his only IN to being an OC again.)
Again. Shitting on the good decisions is crazy, because it makes it clear that you're going to shit on anything that happens regardless of result. How are we supposed to have a good faith conversation if you're just going to chalk literally
any decision up in hindsight as bad because you don't like the current direction of the franchise?
Schottenheimer getting the Seattle job despite not having any other offers, and then immediately taking the rushing game from worst to first and taking Russell from his worst season to his most efficient as a professional, reflects WELL on Pete. THAT IS AN OBJECTIVELY GOOD THING. IT SHOULD NOT GARNER CRITICISM IN HINDSIGHT, BECAUSE IT WAS A GOOD THING.
He's since gone on to Dallas where, despite not calling the plays, Dak and the 'Boys are cruising.
We're coloring the good hires as bad hires... because why? You think makes your overall argument better? It's at worst dishonest, and at best misguided.
Speaking of which, Offense is a whole 'nother can of worms. As Pete insists on being apart of that as well.
We're going to get into a dicey, yet familiar, territory where I can bring up how vastly different each offensive coordinators product looks in Seattle, and you'll string a few threads of commonality together and claim that they're strong enough to support an illogical claim that Pete Carroll is a puppetmaster of the offense.
The head coach should be a part of the offense, and you
explicitly endorse him getting involved in the offense 4 days ago right here, so....:
Actual critiques of Waldron is - abandoning the run game too often. And forgetting about the TEs. However, Pete is on the headset. He needs to be in Shane's ear telling him these things. So Pete is just as culpable for allowing this mess to happen. Pete continues to steer the ship into an iceburg, no matter who his assistants are.
I don't know. Should he get involved or shouldn't he? You seem to believe both, as long as what you believe makes Pete wrong.
Quality OCs are going to go with offensive HCs, first. As it fast tracks them to HC jobs. And they relate better to the issues that arise inevitably during a football season and learn a helluva lot more in the process.
I don't think you're considering this fully. The good offensive HCs in this league predominantly handle the playsheet themselves. Same logic that sees Fangio pairing himself with offensive HCs mainly. This is also a point that conflicts with your own writings, as you're on record repeatedly stating that assistants mainly value autonomy. Despite those views being in direct conflict with one another, they both fall on the side of a con for Pete Carroll. This is a pattern, and again, it makes it feel like we're not engaging in good faith because we're not remaining consistent or honest.
3rd, the cronies and "Yes" men category. Which is what Pete will be picking from. As he insists his philosophy be implemented into whatever is being run.
For example, Pete is on the record for keeping 70% of the offensive playbook when Schotty arrived. And Schotty had to learn Seattle's playbook language (he had to learn West coast verbage), and Schotty could put in his 30% "add to that" as Pete put it.
We can't conflate looking for basic synergy as rounding up cronies. He isn't hiring people to do their jobs for them. This is obvious, basic logic and we're living in an absolutely fantasyland if we're actually installing that type of fanciful dreck as our view on the inner-workings of the franchise.
Here's a quote from the ESPN article you're referencing that includes the 70% comment.
"Carroll wasn't interested in a wholesale scheme change, figuring that Wilson and others had spent too much time in Seattle's offense to start over with an entirely new one. Carroll has cited Schottenheimer's diverse background as important for someone who would have to adapt to what Seattle has done offensively. Both have estimated that the Seahawks' "new" playbook is 70 percent of what they've already been running and 30 percent of what Schottenheimer is incorporating."
The quiet part that you're not saying out loud is that
he was absolutely goddamn right to do this, as it resulted in an immediate offensive turnaround from (yet again) worst to first in rushing and Russell Wilson's best season yet. You know what
doesn't work with Wilson? A BUNCHA NEW SHIT HE HASN'T ALREADY DONE, WHICH IS WHY PAYTON'S OFFENSE LOOKS ROUGHLY THE SAME AS OURS IN THE GLORY DAYS. No, they're not exactly the same. He's Sean Payton. But the framework is there, and Russell Wilson runs exactly one type of offense well.
You're not stupid. You're deliberately leaving this context out to use the quote in a far more damning context than it was actually made, and again,
that makes it a bad faith argument.
After Waldron's first game with the Seahawks they looked like the Ram's, but by week 2, they already started falling back to the old ways. And Pete is on the record again stating, "Shane is real open to the things we do around here."
This is a valid point. Offense regressed. This is a Waldron trend thus far, but it wasn't a trend under Schotty until 2020. There are likely systemic issues that are more nuanced than "that god dang Pete is makin' his offense bad again" but I'll concede that this point on the 2021 offense is valid. It does not excuse 2023's offense.
Pete is going to want a guy who knows west coast verbage, preferably from the Alex Gibbs/Shanahan tree, and be willing to do things his way. An up and coming coach with any value will avoid Pete like the plague.
He's made decently varied hires at OC in his tenure here, as well as at USC (Sark, Kiffin? C'mon), and it probably isn't a bad idea for an OC hire to have some west coast verbiage. That's what most everyone here pines for. That said, his previous hiring of Schottenheimer and Solari indicates to me that he isn't married to Gibbs tree. Not strictly, anyway.
As for your doom and gloom about this place being avoided... this is the NFL. Guys will want the job regardless. There are only 32 of them in the world, and the competition is staggering. As much as I'm sure that you're projecting your personal hatred as a fan for Carroll onto that of a candidate who wants to call an offense in the NFL, we should remain realistic and acknowledge that these jobs are highly coveted.
Unless, of course, you're admitting with your statement that Waldron was not an up and coming coach and has no value? (Also untrue, but can be argued that you're implying this based on your own conflicting points).
Waldron was a huge get, believe it or not. But Waldron thought he was going to coach Russell Wilson, and be a HC in 2 years. I guarantee he regrets taking this job.
A vote for Pete is a vote for cronies. And if you're cool with that... well... best of luck to ya.
Cousins shredded his Achilles and is old. He will be looking to sign with a contender, not a rebuilding team. With a fully guaranteed contract at that and the Seahawks are capped out.
Waldron was my literal #1 candidate going into 2021. Knowing what I do now, I do not think he was a huge get at OC. I think he's presided over an offense with deep functional issues that are manifesting in ways unique to him. I do not think Schottenheimer would have us in as negative of a position as we are offensively right now. As of now, I consider Waldron to be best served as an assistant or positional coach dealing with play design, rather than a playcaller with considerable gameday responsibilities. I don't think this is an outlandish viewpoint.
The NFL is full of cronies. McVay's staff is full of them. Synergy isn't cronyism.
Cousins is older and yes, coming off injury. I don't think he's a likely signing, but I'd be thrilled to have him. As for the capped out comments, I don't need to remind you that you're on record ad nauseam saying that the salary cap is mere accounting and can be almost infinitely exploited. He could be fit if he wanted to come here. The more conventional route would be the draft. I agree that quarterback is a need that has to be figured out.
If they keep Waldron and let him fully implement the system (The system Kirk has played in his entire career.) it could work. But this is all mediocre stuff. This is not a championship plan. Just more mediocrity. With Pete continuing to get hammered by Kyle and McVay.
You've never seen Waldron call plays before Seattle. You saw McVay's offense with Waldron helping out in various smaller jobs as McVay passed him up THRICE for OC. It's not unequivocally his system, it's a system he's coached in. There
is a difference, and given what we've seen, it is BEYOND FAIR to wonder whether he's capable of implementing an entire offense with the level of detail required for success. Schotty sure could!
But whatever. I'm fine with my preferred plan being called mediocre. I'm not a decision maker here. But I'll stand by my assertion that if we hit on an acceptable OC and nail down quarterback, all bets are quickly off. We're 6-5 with a complete abortion of an offense right now. They'd be asskickers if they were just
moderately better at extending drives. I'm not going to let my disappointment cloud my judgment. You're never as far away as you look like you are in the NFL.
.
