Seahawks the Past 5-7 Years

CelticWolf12

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
18
If you give Pete & Company credit for the past success of this Seahawks organization, why would you not blame him for ALL the Seahawk failures in the last 5-7 years in particular? Pete has more influence and control over a (this) football team than any other coach in the NFL. He controls who the offensive and defensive coordinators are and/or will be. He controls which type of offense and defense the Seahawks play. He determined if Jamal Adams was/is a, “good fit” for this Seahawk defense and how much to give up in draft capital and how much $$$ to resign him for.

Regardless of who Pete hires or anoints as the offensive/defensive coordinator, inevitably the same old figured out, vintage, stale schemes will be implemented and run on both side of the football. It goes like this: We get a new offensive coordinator. They try to implement new and innovative concepts. Pete doesn’t approve, and at the next cheerleading press conference will say things such as, “we need to get back to who we are…”, etc. For example, look at Brian Schottenheimer in Dallas. The offense he is running there looks nothing like the old, tired, dated Peteball special he was mandated to run here in Seattle. The same is happening to Shane Waldron. Once he gets fired and moves on from Seattle to a new team, he will be able to run an offensive very similar to the Rams.

This is the new NFL. It is based on complex packages, mismatches, movement, deception and trickery. The rules limit what defenses can do and how they can combat these new schemes… by design! Pete thinks he can change, but inevitably and unfortunately, he cannot. Pete just isn’t an XXX and OOO type of coach. The proof is in the pudding! Just look at the lack of success he has had over the past 5-7 years. If you hire a defensive guru like Pete, you better have a competent, way above averaged defense to carry your team. Instead, what we have had in Seattle the past 5-7 years is a bottom dwelling defense which has been at times historically and embarrassingly bad!!! Even after years of drafting and signing FA’s to, “fix” the defense, still not even close to league average! I am convinced that if Seattle had the defensive personnel the 49’s has this year, based on our current defensive scheme (flex but not break, bs, etc.), the Seahawks would be middle of the pack at best defensively. The good news is that the defensive linemen aren’t dropping back into coverage much this year. I guess that’s a win.

Lastly, like many things in life, it’s not ALL good or ALL bad with Pete. As a coach, you need to me nimble, flexible and constantly evolving to copycat the latest and greatest schemes AND to keep the other 31 team constantly guessing on both sides of the ball! The early days of Peteball worked when Seattle had the best RB in the league along with a very good QB, and the NFL actually allowed the defense to change and alter a game with big hits and physical play. He (and his philosophy) brought this organization to the promised land, which should never, ever be forgotten!!! Unfortunately, things change. The NFL has changed. You can no longer win by playing a “not to lose” type of strategy. The “Keep the game close until the fourth quarter” mentality and plan equates to tons of pressure constantly on your defense as well as mental fatigue and immense pressure on ALL the players. The Peteball philosophy is useful when you have a young, inexperienced rookie/first year QB and you want to eliminate risk while allowing other parts of the team to pick up the slack. The problem is that Peteball doesn’t change or evolve, whether you have a rookie QB or a 10-year vet like Geno Smith! Much like investing with a covered call strategy. Yes, financial risk is drastically reduced. However, so isn’t monetary upside and reward! Fortune favors the brave…not the timid, and certainly not Peteball!

Go Hawks!
 

knownone

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
5,263
Reaction score
2,192
The thing is, Pete is 56-43 in the last seven years and 47-35 in the previous five, and Seattle's offense and defense have evolved dramatically over that stretch. So what is "Peteball"? Throwing the ball 65% of the time and having the 5th most diverse formation usage on offense?
 

morgulon1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
7,758
Reaction score
3,583
Location
Spokane, Wa
I don't think the offense is too far away from being decent . They HAVE to get the offensive line fixed. The people they have aren't getting it done and they can't establish the running game.

The defense is more puzzling , they have some good guys on that side of the ball but I think the defense they're utilizing is easily picked apart . Most notably by Mr McVay and Shanahan.

Until Pete Carroll realizes this and does something about it, nothing else will ultimately matter.
 

Weadoption

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2013
Messages
1,078
Reaction score
716
it’s the Oline.
forget the past, fix the Oline today.
this is the draft for that too.
can’t count on Lucas being healthy i don’t think. Finding some JR Sweezy types on the cheap for the guard spots be good too.
can’t even believe I’m saying i miss Sweezy so that says enough by itself as far as state of the O line.
 

Welshers2

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2023
Messages
999
Reaction score
1,400
ALL the Seahawk failures in the last 5-7 years in particular?
You act like they're the Browns when they won 1 game in 2 seasons or something. Seattle has a winning record in your definition of failure
 

jammerhawk

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,081
Reaction score
1,713
Sure, blame Pete.

He still had a good run. IUt’s time to move on. All your points about why the team needed to move on are with some reservations spot on.

That was then, and now there is a new Sheriif, and it’s time to move on.

If this is is another Pete Hate thread, I’m not listening anymore. It’s time look forward. We’ve certainly seen enough blame threads here to a point of really finding it hard to accept again and again.
 

SPOHAWK

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
1,558
Reaction score
119
Doing part of the Super Bowl I just watched the 2013 Super Bowl run they covered the whole season and let me tell you something we haven't seen that since well technically we haven't seen it since 2014 it makes you wonder what would have happened if they'd run the ball and made the touchdown we would have two in a row and maybe not made so many changes and stuck with what we were doing maybe three maybe a year off and then another Super owl who knows but that team was incredible the way they came through that's been missing since
 

jammerhawk

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,081
Reaction score
1,713
This question has been asked again and again.

Even PC has said that decision not to give the ball to Lynch and the ensuing result was one of the lowest points of his whole coaching career.

It certainly marked the effective end of the symbolic dominance of PC’s D.
 

Hawknight

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
2,146
Reaction score
897
Location
Here and there
I wouldn't necessarily call that last 5-7 years a failure because of Pete. We still had a fair amount of success during the course of those years, a few not necessarily successful; however, Pete's coaching became I guess "stale" to the point where he was able to lead up the hill to the playoffs but not necessarily over the hump to get us past the playoffs for another Super Bowl show. Some teams would love to have the success Pete has these last several years, but as fans, we now expect alot out of this team after having a taste of the greatness we once had, that's why I described Pete's coaching as stale. Just enough to keep the fans pacified but not enough to fill that craving of success for which they now crave.
 

ZagHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2013
Messages
2,150
Reaction score
171
This question has been asked again and again.

Even PC has said that decision not to give the ball to Lynch and the ensuing result was one of the lowest points of his whole coaching career.

It certainly marked the effective end of the symbolic dominance of PC’s D.
Everyone likes to point to "should of ran it" but no one acknowledges the defense (I think went Avril and Lane went out) also allowed Brady to take back the lead...The defense also started getting their weakness exposed (against teams with QBs that were capable/patient/resilient)...dink and dunk all the way up the field.
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,730
Reaction score
2,273
Location
Tijuana/San Diego
Everyone likes to point to "should of ran it" but no one acknowledges the defense (I think went Avril and Lane went out) also allowed Brady to take back the lead...The defense also started getting their weakness exposed (against teams with QBs that were capable/patient/resilient)...dink and dunk all the way up the field.
There is one poster who points the defense out every single time this stuff gets brought up (not me), so welcome to the party on this perspective. I however point out every time that the defense is brought up, that it was in fact an intentional dirty play by the Patriots fullback that hit Avril with a forearm to the head that started the defenses collapse. There wasn't even any pretense to him blocking Avril. He simply ran at him, left his feet and hit him with a forearm shot to the head a la pro wrestling. It got them a ring, so I am sure that he is was pleased as punch, but I hope he has trouble sleeping at night since the CTE stuff has come to light.
 

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,296
Reaction score
2,841
Location
Kennewick, WA
Even PC has said that decision not to give the ball to Lynch and the ensuing result was one of the lowest points of his whole coaching career.

It certainly marked the effective end of the symbolic dominance of PC’s D.
I don't want to re-ignite another SB 49 debate, but the problem with that last infamous play call wasn't that we didn't run it. The problem was with the specific pass play.

The reason we didn't want to run the ball was because it was 2nd down and with just one timeout, had we not scored, we would have had to burn it then on 3rd down, have to take a win-or-lose chance by running it, which was unlikely, or passing it. More than likely, the Pats would have guessed pass on 3rd and substituted. It was a reasonable decision.

As it was, the Pats had their heavy run defense in so we should have had the advantage. However, the play call was a very poor choice. Kearse was stuffed by Browner, a big, physical CB that was no match. By Kearse not getting into his route, it freed up the safety to jump the slant pass to Lockette. Russell threw a bad ball, up high around the numbers instead of a knee high pass that would have made Lockette go down for it and turned it into a 50/50 ball. He also didn't see Kearse get stuffed, or if he did, didn't realize that the safety was now free to jump the route.

So basically, it was a failure on the OC's fault by sending in a poorly designed pass play and on the quarterback for not knowing or understanding that Kearse wasn't going to beat Browner and for throwing a bad ball. In a situation like that, I always prefer to give the QB some options rather than a bang-bang play across the middle at the goal line in a compressed field where a deflected pass and interception is a big risk. On that particular play, Lynch was wide open and would have done a crotch grab into the end zone had Russell understood what had/likely to happen with Kearse.
 
Last edited:

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,364
Reaction score
1,331
Location
Roy Wa.
Lynch run or a roll out fake hand off to Lynch and him in the pattern, he was wide open on the other side and had one man to beat, my money would have been on Lynch one on one with anybody in that situation.
 

jeremiah

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
750
Reaction score
253
I don't want to re-ignite another SB 49 debate, but the problem with that last infamous play call wasn't that we didn't run it. The problem was with the specific pass play.

The reason we didn't want to run the ball was because it was 2nd down and with just one timeout, had we not scored, we would have had to burn it then on 3rd down, have to take a win-or-lose chance by running it, which was unlikely, or passing it. More than likely, the Pats would have guessed pass on 3rd and substituted. It was a reasonable decision.

As it was, the Pats had their heavy run defense in so we should have had the advantage. However, the play call was a very poor choice. Kearse was stuffed by Browner, a big, physical CB that was no match. By Kearse not getting into his route, it freed up the safety to jump the slant pass to Lockette. Russell threw a bad ball, up high around the numbers instead of a knee high pass that would have made Lockette go down for it and turned it into a 50/50 ball. He also didn't see Kearse get stuffed, or if he did, didn't realize that the safety was now free to jump the route.

So basically, it was a failure on the OC's fault by sending in a poorly designed pass play and on the quarterback for not knowing or understanding that Kearse wasn't going to beat Browner and for throwing a bad ball. In a situation like that, I always prefer to give the QB some options rather than a bang-bang play across the middle at the goal line in a compressed field where a deflected pass and interception is a big risk. On that particular play, Lynch was wide open and would have done a crotch grab into the end zone had Russell understood what had/likely to happen with Kearse.
Clock management BEFORE we got to the goal line was atrocious. There should've been a lot more time left. Instead of burning up clock before the end, you make NE burn up theirs later. The biggest problems with Pete, were clock management, and his teams making false starts and offsides for no reason. DISCIPLINE, which is why DK needs to be traded. Even today, he is out of control.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,364
Reaction score
1,331
Location
Roy Wa.
No he is a once in a generation type like Lynch that needs the right management, Owens, Moss, Michael Irvin, Shannon Sharp, to name a few were guys that you scratched your head about but delivered, some teams knew how to work with them and some didn't.
 

RiverDog

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
5,296
Reaction score
2,841
Location
Kennewick, WA
Clock management BEFORE we got to the goal line was atrocious. There should've been a lot more time left. Instead of burning up clock before the end, you make NE burn up theirs later. The biggest problems with Pete, were clock management, and his teams making false starts and offsides for no reason. DISCIPLINE, which is why DK needs to be traded. Even today, he is out of control.
I agree. I was at a game, in Arizona if memory serves, where Michael Bennett lined up offside twice on two consecutive plays.

Holmgren wasn't a lot better at clock management. The Walrus used to have his nose buried so deep into that Denny's menu that he was in his own little world.

But they're not the only ones. I've seen some hugely boneheaded clock management by a number of NFL head coaches.
 

bigcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
447
As much as I have defended carroll, the guys clock management was beyond atrocious.
 
Top