This team loses way too often due to coaching mistakes

[DomeHawk]

The fact that you cannot see that is on you.

Even though I've said about 10 times now in numerous threads that I also think we should have made better adjustments during the game? Gotcha.

See, that's the difference between me and some of you guys. I'm able to compartmentalize drives, games, seasons and careers and not paint criticism with broad brush strokes and indict Pete's entire career or coaching philosophy with these nonsense threads about how we lose way too often due to his coaching mistakes.

Way too often, it's actually laughable it's so stupid.

I compare Pete to Coach Petersen in some ways, both are great program coaches, excel in player development, and BOTH make incredibly stupid game-time decisions.

I guess you have to take the good with the bad but jezuzz, it is beyond frustrating.

We should have, not could have, won that game and it is ENTIRELY on the coach!

 

[Flyingsquad23]

The obvious mistake is thinking that any changes or adjustments wouldn’t have guaranteed victory any more than staying the course.

2-13.... that was their 3rd down efficiency. If they convert 4 more they could’ve seen 12 more plays. Even if they went 6/6 run/pass it puts the total at 30/33 run/pass and all the numbers that go with it. Like most games it really comes down to execution over play call in my opinion.

Every game all players and coaches can find mistakes in their game win or lose.

 

[DomeHawk]

The obvious mistake is thinking that any changes or adjustments wouldn’t have guaranteed victory any more than staying the course.

2-13.... that was their 3rd down efficiency. If they convert 4 more they could’ve seen 12 more plays. Even if they went 6/6 run/pass it puts the total at 30/33 run/pass and all the numbers that go with it. Like most games it really comes down to execution over play call in my opinion.

Every game all players and coaches can find mistakes in their game win or lose.

Some of the most ridiculous stat referencing I have ever seen on this board. 3rd-down efficiency was created by the very thing everyone is complaining about!

Get it?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We should have, not could have, won that game and it is ENTIRELY on the coach!

Maybe, maybe not.

It's easy and simplistic to arrive at this conclusion when you use the formula of run didn't work = therefore more passing would have yielded better results.

The complex reality is there was MANY more factor than just "more passing."

- timely terrible penalties
- allowing a 3rd and 14 to be converted at the end of the game
- Dallas was the more physical team
- Dallas executed better
- key injuries hampering the play of guys like Griffin, Flowers, Sweezy, Doug and Fluker

That's the beauty of sports, and why we watch. All these moving parts of preparation + skill + effort + luck. So yes maybe more passing or making adjustments to the playcalling would have resulted in winning. But it's not a certainty by any stretch..........and certainly doesn't feed into the OP's original take that Pete makes too many coaching mistakes.

So lose to Dallas in the playoffs in a year we overachieved with the level of roster talent and coach turnover and now it's pete makes too many mistakes and what? Fire him? C'mon people, you're better than this.

 

[ivotuk]

The team only lost by 2 points and it was the D that failed to stop Dallas’ O. Meanwhile our O was regrettably defensible by being predictable. Our O seemed unable to convert faced with critical situations.

Credit needs to be given to the Dallas D which had a lot of answers all game to our O. To me the pass D failed to hold them down and that was the difference. It is lazy analysis to my mind to blame the game plan when the pass attemptnumbers were higher than you might think.

When the run game sucked all the way through the 3rd quarter and you insist on running consistently in the 4th expecting a different outcome....

Einstein my friend

They ran consistently in the 4th Quarter? Why do people insist on suspending reality to back up their narrative? :34853_doh:

 

[TwistedHusky]

I think we need to reconcile with the reality that just because we have a great QB, does not mean we are going to have success in the playoffs.

The football that made Carroll successful is going to be what he runs with, what he knows.

I certainly don't think any change is going to result in a better coach (HC) arriving.

But I do know that Carroll tends to do 3 things:

1 - Develop hidden or overlooked talent into fantastic players. He has a way of developing a roster quickly.

2 - Struggle to find effective assistant coaches (He has had this since USC). Occasionally he gets a good one, but for the most part there are a lot of dogs in there, even back in USC.

3 - Produce an overall result that in hindsight seems much less than it should have been. All those stellar recruiting classes at USC seemed to result in a lot less titles than you would expect. A roster filled with HOF players only wins one SB. A ten win season with the #1 rushing offense ends with zero playoff wins.

I convinced myself that this was a big area that #3 would change because literally every issue that held Wilson back before seemed to be close to resolved. This was the year that Wilson showed himself an Elite QB in the playoffs. Well, it didn't happen but I shouldn't have expected it.

But, is a ten win season better than an 8 win season? That was the expectation.

Is it OK to pile up great regular season #s in tremendously watchable games even though you don't win anything in the playoffs? I suppose so.

Carroll is going to continue with his approach. The stuff that worked has been copied and deployed around the NFL. He did change the NFL on that. The stuff that doesn't? Carroll is still going to insist on. Overall his best days are behind him but he will still pile up records above .500.

We got a SB win out of it. He delivered. I don't know it makes sense to expect more considering the reality. But the regular seasons are watchable, the wins are fun and expecting playoff wins with our current OC seems odd considering his name is literally slang for great regular seasons combined with playoff flameouts.

 

[Flyingsquad23]

Some of the most ridiculous stat referencing I have ever seen on this board. 3rd-down efficiency was created by the very thing everyone is complaining about!

Get it?[/quote]


Whether or not you think it is ridiculous, my point stands. If you don't convert on third down you don't get anymore chances to run or pass on that drive. Four times they threw the ball on 3rd and 6 or less, missed all of them. More passing didn't guarantee anything. 27<35 attempts is a great number for Russ and is what he had and could've had with a few more conversions which would've led to....more plays. I don't believe the same game plan that won them 10 games was a mistake.

1 for 6 on 3rd in the first half with the only conversion coming on the 2nd to last play, a 3 yard run. 13 chances on 3rd down and they coverted 2. Execute on any of those lost opportunities to extend drives and most certainly points would've been scored using the game plan they went with. Again the game plan and coaching wasn't a mistake in my opinion. Get it?

 

[Spin Doctor]

Pete Carroll is a good big picture guy. He has an idea of what he wants, and how he wants to do it. He knows how to put together a program, and he has a set identity. This is both a positive and a negative. Many coaches in the NFL are cut, copy, and paste. They don't have much of an idea of what they want to do, or they just don't have the sway with the front office to get their guys. Another thing Carroll is fantastic at is cobbling defensive pieces together out of seemingly nowhere. Guys like Maxwell and Browner exceeded here, and looked borderline pro bowl quality, when they left to different teams they were exposed. He knows where to put players on defense, and how to minimize their weaknesses, and maximize their inherent strengths.

This is how Pete Carroll gets the job done. As an in game coach he is very bad. His time management skills are quite possibly the worst i've seen in the NFL. He throws timeouts around like they are candy, and makes very questionable game time decisions. He knows how to put together a program, but his management skills and unshakable philosophical leanings lead to a rigid, unrelenting approach. He has a hard time switching gears when the team has been thrown off the initial game plan. For every Carolina game, you have two Dallas Cowboy games it seems.

Carroll is somebody that elevates his teams threw off the field management. In game he makes a lot of questionable decisions, and his views on things like the offense are quite frankly outdated. I'd say he gets out coached a lot, but where he shines is in the overall vision of things. I think his teams would be a lot better if he had somebody take much of the game time decisions away from him, mainly on offense.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Is it OK to pile up great regular season #s in tremendously watchable games even though you don't win anything in the playoffs? I suppose so..

Sometimes I think I'm in a different team's forum. You're talking about Pete Carroll right? Not like..............Jim Mora or Dennis Erickson? Or maybe you're talking about Marvin Lewis.

Other than Belichick and Reid, who's had more post season success than Pete in the league right now? and Reid is debatable because he still hasn't won a SB, or even got to one.

At USC, he dominated for eight years, to the tune of 2 national titles, 4 Rose Bowl wins, 2 Orange Bowl wins and seven Pac 10 titles.

Man you have a short memory Husky, or your expectations are ridiculous. Either way, good lord.

 

[seedhawk]

Would this thread have taken a different direction if the OP had left off the last word in the title? Seems to me that would be more accurate.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Professional football is a 'what have you done for me lately' league.

What have the Seahawks and Pete Carroll done in the playoffs in the last five years?

For 2-3 years his iconoclastic approach to how he used the defense and how he drafted, developed and deployed players led to stellar results. Dominant results and HOF players (a good example the big long corner vs the quick, fast corners that were in vogue at the time) peppered the roster.

But in the past 5 years not only has that success been less significant, but we are actually in a decline. Last year we missed the playoffs, this year we made the wildcard with a slightly better record but after playing a field of much worse teams. We didn't register a playoff win and I don't expect one next year either.

Do you expect this to change? A lot of Pete's ideas that gave him specific advantages were replicated or legislated out of the game. And he is still clinging to an aging outdated approach to football that does not work in the playoffs.

You think Marty Ball is suddenly going to start working because Pete wills it so? He will pile up solid regular season records though and that isn't a terrible outcome.

But the trend is not some amazing improvement that will put us back on top. Our big advantage is our QB, which we refuse to leverage anyway.

 

[AubHawk71]

I would imagine in the NFL when you have a week to put together a game plan, there isn t a lot of time to have a plan b or c, or "adjust" in game. There are a lot of moving parts. So you make a plan and stick with it. You can be outcoached even before the game starts . like winning the SB 43-8.

Not considering that kickers carry an inordinate amount of weight (sorry Seabass) in the outcome.

And timely, end of game penalties. When these 20 somethings are exhausted and desperate and make silly mistakes.

Is that part of your game plan?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Do you expect this to change? .

Expect? It's already changing. We just went 10-6 in a rebuild year with holes all over the roster and less talent then most of the teams we beat this year.

So do I expect to get back to a SB with old man Marty Ball Pete? Yes. Because we saw what he did this year, and I expect him and John to get the D back on one of the dominant defenses in the league with 80M of cap space and draft picks.

Btw, good thing you were running the Patriots from 2005-2015 with your "what have you done for me lately" attitude, because you would have fired Belichick around 2008 or 2009 because he hadn't won anything in 2-3 years.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Do you expect this to change? .

Expect? It's already changing. We just went 10-6 in a rebuild year with holes all over the roster and less talent then most of the teams we beat this year.

So do I expect to get back to a SB with old man Marty Ball Pete? Yes. Because we saw what he did this year, and I expect him and John to get the D back on one of the dominant defenses in the league with 80M of cap space and draft picks.

This wasn't so much of a rebuilding year as it was retooling. We already had most of the core pieces to our success on the roster. That 80M dollar cap space is a little bit misleading as well. We have to re-sign Frank Clark, and KJ, we have a Russell Wilson contract coming up, and both Sweezy, and Fluker are free agents. Sweezy's value especially just shot through the roof as he was a first team pro bowler for the NFC. The Seahawk's need to be very careful about how they spend money this off season. That is, unless Carroll wants to leverage it all for short term success, while sacrificing some pieces in the future.

Can we get to the Super Bowl? Yes, is it likely? No, not based on what I've seen from the Seahawks since 2015. Pete had several advantages afforded to him that allowed us to push for the Super Bowl that are no longer in play. It is either you're innovating, or you're getting left behind, and unfortunately Pete is in the later group. Carroll is firmly placed in late Holmgren territory. A once brilliant coach that lost his edge, and stagnated. A Carroll led team is a 10-6, 9-7 sort of deal with a quick exit from the playoffs. I mean, I'll take it over having a Gus Bradley, or Hue Jackson figure coaching this team, that being said it is frustrating seeing Russell Wilson's abilities being squandered.

 

[John63]

Do you expect this to change? .

Expect? It's already changing. We just went 10-6 in a rebuild year with holes all over the roster and less talent then most of the teams we beat this year.

So do I expect to get back to a SB with old man Marty Ball Pete? Yes. Because we saw what he did this year, and I expect him and John to get the D back on one of the dominant defenses in the league with 80M of cap space and draft picks.

This wasn't so much of a rebuilding year as it was retooling. We already had most of the core pieces to our success on the roster. That 80M dollar cap space is a little bit misleading as well. We have to re-sign Frank Clark, and KJ, we have a Russell Wilson contract coming up, and both Sweezy, and Fluker are free agents. Sweezy's value especially just shot through the roof as he was a first team pro bowler for the NFC. The Seahawk's need to be very careful about how they spend money this off season. That is, unless Carroll wants to leverage it all for short term success, while sacrificing some pieces in the future.

Can we get to the Super Bowl? Yes, is it likely? No, not based on what I've seen from the Seahawks since 2015. Pete had several advantages afforded to him that allowed us to push for the Super Bowl that are no longer in play. It is either you're innovating, or you're getting left behind, and unfortunately Pete is in the later group. Carroll is firmly placed in late Holmgren territory. A once brilliant coach that lost his edge, and stagnated. A Carroll led team is a 10-6, 9-7 sort of deal with a quick exit from the playoffs. I mean, I'll take it over having a Gus Bradley, or Hue Jackson figure coaching this team, that being said it is frustrating seeing Russell Wilson's abilities being squandered.

This!

 

[Tinymac2]

We play the same team twice. The first we win 24-13. 2 picks and 5 sacks. The second we lose 22-24. 1 pick and 1 sack.
The D cost us the game. Do we really need to continue the hypothetical witch hunt against the coaches?

 

[jammerhawk]

My comment above was written when I was disappointed in the result of Saturday night.

It was the first half that disappointed most with the consecutive 3 and outs. After that I wa more disappointed in the D.

I don’t think you can lay the blame if you need to lay blame on the the coaching Dallas played well and were the better team on the night. They had a lot of answers for our team on every side of the ball and were the better team on the night. Vent then it was only a 2 point loss after a weak 1st half. If a kick had been made we’d all be looking forward to playing the Rams this weekend.

In the end all things considered it was a great season that had left lots of room for a great deal of optimism going forward. Now to fix the Special Teams.

 

[A.D.I.D.A.S.]

Is there no other player on the roster who can kick an onside kick? Hell I can do that easily and with nearly 100% accuracy. You kick the top part of the ball FROM A TEE. Can't the punter USE A FRICKIN TEE? Or does it hurt his rugby feelings?

Out of all of it this is what blew me away at the end of the game. Why the hell do you kick the ball 30 yards down the field so absolutely NOBODY can even make a play on the ball? At least TRY to do an onside kick giving somebody a chance.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Can we get to the Super Bowl? Yes, is it likely? No, not based on what I've seen from the Seahawks since 2015. Pete had several advantages afforded to him that allowed us to push for the Super Bowl that are no longer in play. It is either you're innovating, or you're getting left behind, and unfortunately Pete is in the later group. Carroll is firmly placed in late Holmgren territory. A once brilliant coach that lost his edge, and stagnated. A Carroll led team is a 10-6, 9-7 sort of deal with a quick exit from the playoffs. I mean, I'll take it over having a Gus Bradley, or Hue Jackson figure coaching this team, that being said it is frustrating seeing Russell Wilson's abilities being squandered.

What innovation has Bill Belichick brought to the NFL over his career? Other then just being an INSANELY detailed savant that demands perfection in how he wants his schemes executed day in and day out, practice to practice and game to game from every single person in the building...........and that gives his teams a better chance of winning because they out prepare, make less mistakes and out execute their opponents.

People are too quick to jump on the jocks of the new flavor of "innovators." Andy Reid is considered an offensive genius innovator, zero SB's. Everyone wants the next Sean McVay, zero SB's. Kyle Shanahan? Went 4-12 this year.

Pete has said it himself many times, the rules may change but football is still football. Preparation, practice, heart, size, physicality, athleticism, and a coach that knows how to put it all together and win.

That's Pete, if you didn't see that he can still do that this year with a young unproven raw roster with less talent then most of our opponents, then you weren't paying attention.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He's a hell of a coach, one of the best in the league. Just seems like his stubborn nature cost him in this game.
That being said, it's on the players to make the plays, period.