To the Out With Pete people

[Subzero717]

https://overthecap.com/looking-at-nfl-draft-success-since-2015/
This link has a full chart relating to draft hit rates since 2015

A couple things I noticed

Hit Rate
Hawks #11
Some teams with higher hit rate...Miami, Cincinnati, WFT all perennial losers

Success Rate
Hawks #7
With the #1 team being the WFT. No playoffs and a 5-7 record this year

% On Team
Hawks #14
Some teams below the Hawks...Cards, Rams, Packers, Saints, 9er’s, Vikings, Patriots, and Chiefs

2018 Playing Time
Didn’t count the spots but the Hawks were near the bottom of this metric yet they are ahead of..
Packers, Ravens, Rams and Patriots

From what I see within this chart the talk of John and Pete underperforming with the draft is way off.

No offense but this article goes from 2015 to middle of 2018.

None taken, 2015-2018 covers 4 drafts in the post LOB draft era that people are claiming to be terrible. The 2019 draft has been discussed 8 Guys from that draft played and 6 of them significantly(one of them an absolute beast). The 2020 draft has seen 6 of the 8 play and contribute. So I’m not sure what your point is.

That its a very small sample size for starters.

Then what constitutes hits? Ifedi was a 4 year starter at RT for us. Does that make him a hit? I personally dont consider that a bust given where he was taken in the draft but just the fact that he played cant make it a success. He got a minimum contract as a FA and as he signed they changed his position.

Now that on its own isnt a failure but they add up over time. As I pointed out an another post its the accumilation of early misses and then how they compound. The Malik draft for example, we could have taken Budda. We did draft Lano and TT. We either missed or werent able to develop either of them. Now we traded two firsts and a third for Adams. Its the cumulative affect of the misses.

 

[ludakrishna]

2017- we were 8-4 heading into the last 4 weeks with a shot at winning the division and finished 1-3
2018- had no shot at winning the division and finishing the season 3-1. No pressure to perform but did lose to a bad 49ers team at the end of the season.
2019- we were 10-2 and the top seed in the NFC. Finished 1-3 and fell to the #5 seed
2020- we were 8-3 and were the #2 seed in the NFC....let’s see where we finish

But there’s a pattern over the last 3 years...coaching has been unable to get the team to finish the season. No killer instinct to end the season....

 

[Seahawkfan80]

2017- we were 8-4 heading into the last 4 weeks with a shot at winning the division and finished 1-3
2018- had no shot at winning the division and finishing the season 3-1. No pressure to perform but did lose to a bad 49ers team at the end of the season.
2019- we were 10-2 and the top seed in the NFC. Finished 1-3 and fell to the #5 seed
2020- we were 8-3 and were the #2 seed in the NFC....let’s see where we finish

But there’s a pattern over the last 3 years...coaching has been unable to get the team to finish the season. No killer instinct to end the season....

2019 did we not get injured a lot? We even had to try to bring back a Beast of a person.

 

[ludakrishna]

2017- we were 8-4 heading into the last 4 weeks with a shot at winning the division and finished 1-3
2018- had no shot at winning the division and finishing the season 3-1. No pressure to perform but did lose to a bad 49ers team at the end of the season.
2019- we were 10-2 and the top seed in the NFC. Finished 1-3 and fell to the #5 seed
2020- we were 8-3 and were the #2 seed in the NFC....let’s see where we finish

But there’s a pattern over the last 3 years...coaching has been unable to get the team to finish the season. No killer instinct to end the season....

2019 did we not get injured a lot? We even had to try to bring back a Beast of a person.

Out come the excuses....Carson was hurt in the 2nd to the last game of the season vs the Cards. We lost to the Rams, squeaked by a bad Carolina team with him. When Carson did get hurt vs Arizona, we were down 20-7 in the third...:begin sarcasm: but then again, you can’t win the game in the 1st 2nd or 3rd quarter, only the 4th :end sarcasm:. Had we took care of business vs the Rams with a Healthy Carson and played competitively vs the Cards up until he was healthy, we could’ve secured the #1 seed by the time the Niners game rolled around. After the Rams game last year, the defense came out and said we weren’t ready for the quick snap they deployed

 

[cymatica]

Even the best coach of our generation went a decade without a SB win, and he is considered one of the best game planners with one of the best QBs.

The Hawks are going on 6 years with a coach who is considered a terrible game planner. Not real confidence inspiring.

Yet they are also in one of the toughest divisions, only missed the playoffs once, only one and done once. Last year, I bet they beat greenbay going away if we aren't decimated an runningback. This year, they are one of the most injured teams, yet 8-4 and a good chance to win the division.

 

[ludakrishna]

Even the best coach of our generation went a decade without a SB win, and he is considered one of the best game planners with one of the best QBs.

The Hawks are going on 6 years with a coach who is considered a terrible game planner. Not real confidence inspiring.

Yet they are also in one of the toughest divisions, only missed the playoffs once, only one and done once. Last year, I bet they beat greenbay going away if we aren't decimated an runningback. This year, they are one of the most injured teams, yet 8-4 and a good chance to win the division.

Google Ivan Lewis Seahawks injuries. Injuries are turning into a pattern and Ivan has a bad reputation following him. One of the worst hires by Pete Carroll.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

2017- we were 8-4 heading into the last 4 weeks with a shot at winning the division and finished 1-3
2018- had no shot at winning the division and finishing the season 3-1. No pressure to perform but did lose to a bad 49ers team at the end of the season.
2019- we were 10-2 and the top seed in the NFC. Finished 1-3 and fell to the #5 seed
2020- we were 8-3 and were the #2 seed in the NFC....let’s see where we finish

But there’s a pattern over the last 3 years...coaching has been unable to get the team to finish the season. No killer instinct to end the season....

2019 did we not get injured a lot? We even had to try to bring back a Beast of a person.

Out come the excuses....Carson was hurt in the 2nd to the last game of the season vs the Cards. We lost to the Rams, squeaked by a bad Carolina team with him. When Carson did get hurt vs Arizona, we were down 20-7 in the third...:begin sarcasm: but then again, you can’t win the game in the 1st 2nd or 3rd quarter, only the 4th :end sarcasm:. Had we took care of business vs the Rams with a Healthy Carson and played competitively vs the Cards up until he was healthy, we could’ve secured the #1 seed by the time the Niners game rolled around. After the Rams game last year, the defense came out and said we weren’t ready for the quick snap they deployed

The only excuse I would like fixed is the old motto of our team......get someone ready to place in the position....yanno. Remember the old term NEXT MAN UP. We are obviously not creating backups to fill the position. Next man up is what all the draft picks should be working to attain. If they aint, then bottom dwellers we will become...(in my yoda voice).

 

[pittpnthrs]

Even the best coach of our generation went a decade without a SB win, and he is considered one of the best game planners with one of the best QBs.

The Hawks are going on 6 years with a coach who is considered a terrible game planner. Not real confidence inspiring.

Yet they are also in one of the toughest divisions, only missed the playoffs once, only one and done once. Last year, I bet they beat greenbay going away if we aren't decimated an runningback. This year, they are one of the most injured teams, yet 8-4 and a good chance to win the division.

Agree to disagree. So losing in the 2nd round sounds better right? I bet they werent beating Green Bay no matter who they had in the backfield. Quit blaming injuries. Every team has them.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Someone posted a fairly detailed list of other coaches and how they have fallen short too.

The interesting thing is that Andy Reid would have been on that list too, but for landing Mahomes.

Since a number of fans here insist that Wilson is equivalent in value to Mahomes but Mahomes is just given a more coach that facilitates his offensive value, it stands to reason that some of those coaches could likely produce better results given a Mahomes or a Wilson.

Thing is, Carroll already has a Wilson. And so far, outside of the regular season - he isn't doing a whole lot to win with him in the playoffs. He WAS great in the playoffs back in the LOB days, but since the LOB left...or just since the SB loss, you are could easily argue he underachieved.

So reasonable question, would one of those coaches that facilitate offense better be a better fit to take better advantage of Wilson's offensive value.

Secondary question, (posed by someone else), if Carroll's value is defense and we are not even remotely good on defense - then isn't most of the value Carroll should be contributing not being contributed?


A challenge as Largent pointed out is that Pete is by and far one of the best coaches M-Sat in the NFL. He is the best at building programs and processes to identify talent, develop skill, and elicit greatness in players.

We play like an 11 or sometimes 12 win team against the best teams in the NFL during the regular season. The problem is more, in the past 5 years, we play like an 8 win team in the playoffs. Producing results you would expect from 8 win teams in the playoffs.

So is this a Romar-ish situation where we are complaining about a coach under utilizing talent that we likely never would have noticed or developed if he wasn't here? And if so, does it matter to get this amazing talent if you underachieve with it in the playoffs?

 

[ludakrishna]

Even the best coach of our generation went a decade without a SB win, and he is considered one of the best game planners with one of the best QBs.

The Hawks are going on 6 years with a coach who is considered a terrible game planner. Not real confidence inspiring.

Yet they are also in one of the toughest divisions, only missed the playoffs once, only one and done once. Last year, I bet they beat greenbay going away if we aren't decimated an runningback. This year, they are one of the most injured teams, yet 8-4 and a good chance to win the division.

Agree to disagree. So losing in the 2nd round sounds better right? I bet they werent beating Green Bay no matter who they had in the backfield. Quit blaming injuries. Every team has them.

Preach on brother. I’m sick and tired of the injury excuse. We played against a rookie head coach, a rookie defensive coordinator, a backup running back, Backup QB, a team with no #1 WR and a team which lost their best Passrusher and got our butts handed to us. Don’t use the Injury excuse to justify the Seahawks.

 

[cymatica]

Even the best coach of our generation went a decade without a SB win, and he is considered one of the best game planners with one of the best QBs.

The Hawks are going on 6 years with a coach who is considered a terrible game planner. Not real confidence inspiring.

Yet they are also in one of the toughest divisions, only missed the playoffs once, only one and done once. Last year, I bet they beat greenbay going away if we aren't decimated an runningback. This year, they are one of the most injured teams, yet 8-4 and a good chance to win the division.

Agree to disagree. So losing in the 2nd round sounds better right? I bet they werent beating Green Bay no matter who they had in the backfield. Quit blaming injuries. Every team has them.

It's called reality and they were injuries that happened to key pieces, which makes it much tougher to run your offense. This teams style is a balanced play action attack, and that went right out the window when you have to rely on Homer and Lynch out of retirement. They damn near won that game after the Griffin sack, the offense just couldn't get it done on the last drive on the road in Greenbay.

Yes every team has injuries, and most of them struggle when they lose certain center pieces.

 

[cymatica]

The Hawks are going on 6 years with a coach who is considered a terrible game planner. Not real confidence inspiring.

Yet they are also in one of the toughest divisions, only missed the playoffs once, only one and done once. Last year, I bet they beat greenbay going away if we aren't decimated an runningback. This year, they are one of the most injured teams, yet 8-4 and a good chance to win the division.

Agree to disagree. So losing in the 2nd round sounds better right? I bet they werent beating Green Bay no matter who they had in the backfield. Quit blaming injuries. Every team has them.

Preach on brother. I’m sick and tired of the injury excuse. We played against a rookie head coach, a rookie defensive coordinator, a backup running back, Backup QB, a team with no #1 WR and a team which lost their best Passrusher and got our butts handed to us. Don’t use the Injury excuse to justify the Seahawks.

Just stop. New Yorks defense is legit and not I'm not using the injury excuse for that game, you clearly missed the point. I was commending them for being 8-4 with so many injuries at KEY positions, I wasn't even bringing up injuries regarding that game. Seattle wins that game easy if Wilson didn't do his best Colt McCoy impersonation, he was slow all game and missing wide open receivers, and half the time they were dropping balls when he did find them.

Yeah they probably should have ran the ball more, but you would think your high priced qb could pull his head out at some point.

 

[AgentDib]

This will be the 6th season with that same repetitive conclusion (not counting the season they didnt even make the playoffs, but you get the jest). Only 5 more years with that book on the nightstand.

Let's say that we do make the playoffs this season (highly likely) and our opponents on the way to the Super Bowl end up being @NYG, @NO, @LAR. That's a tough three game stretch, but the only way that we could have a 0% chance to progress through is if our likelihood in any of those games was 0%. In reality, the lowest our odds in a single game ever get is around 40%, which translates to at least a 6.4% chance (40% ^ 3) of making it through to the Super Bowl this season.

Of course it's easy to be doom and gloom and predict that we have no chance when the actual chance is pretty low. You are very likely be right and can lord it over everybody and there's only a small chance that you will look silly, at which point nobody will care about you posting that we couldn't win back in December.

Saying we can't win with this coach or can win with that coach implies a binary outcome and makes your argument look superficially strong, but the underlying probability differences between coaches is more like 2% with candidate A, 4% with candidate B, 5% with candidate C, etc. It isn't necessary to use hyperbole here because we should be interested in chasing the highest probability possible, even if we are only gaining a percent or two. You don't have to "foresee" that we have a 0% chance of winning in order to suggest there could be a better option.

 

[AgentDib]

Preach on brother. I’m sick and tired of the injury excuse. We played against a rookie head coach, a rookie defensive coordinator, a backup running back, Backup QB, a team with no #1 WR and a team which lost their best Passrusher and got our butts handed to us. Don’t use the Injury excuse to justify the Seahawks.

What exactly are excuses, other than potential explanations for why bad things occur. "No excuses" is a mindset that can be very useful for the athletes and teams themselves, but is the heights of silliness when cited seriously by fans like they are on the team themselves. Isn't most of what we are doing trying to come up with explanations for what we see on the field?

If we are on our 4th string RT who didn't get a chance to practice at all and hasn't played in two years, then that explains some of the protection breakdowns we saw on the right side of the field. And you should adjust your expectations upwards if you know that the starter will be back or downwards if you find out he'll miss the game. And yes, opponent injuries are also part of the picture which should be discussed.

The NFL has amazing parity between the worst and best teams. The most lopsided game this weekend other than ours is the Saints vs. the Eagles, and the Eagles still have a 37% chance to win according to the money line. An injury here or there, one play, or even one suspect officiating call absolutely affect the outcome of a game and it's completely reasonable for fans to discuss that. You are not part of the team and there is no benefit to throwing away information to improve your performance.

 

[pittpnthrs]

This will be the 6th season with that same repetitive conclusion (not counting the season they didnt even make the playoffs, but you get the jest). Only 5 more years with that book on the nightstand.

Let's say that we do make the playoffs this season (highly likely) and our opponents on the way to the Super Bowl end up being @NYG, @NO, @LAR. That's a tough three game stretch, but the only way that we could have a 0% chance to progress through is if our likelihood in any of those games was 0%. In reality, the lowest our odds in a single game ever get is around 40%, which translates to at least a 6.4% chance (40% ^ 3) of making it through to the Super Bowl this season.

Of course it's easy to be doom and gloom and predict that we have no chance when the actual chance is pretty low. You are very likely be right and can lord it over everybody and there's only a small chance that you will look silly, at which point nobody will care about you posting that we couldn't win back in December.

Saying we can't win with this coach or can win with that coach implies a binary outcome and makes your argument look superficially strong, but the underlying probability differences between coaches is more like 2% with candidate A, 4% with candidate B, 5% with candidate C, etc. It isn't necessary to use hyperbole here because we should be interested in chasing the highest probability possible, even if we are only gaining a percent or two. You don't have to "foresee" that we have a 0% chance of winning in order to suggest there could be a better option.

All those preliminary percentages look great until reality hits. Yes, mathematically the Hawks have a chance (that old tired saying that anything can happen in the playoffs because inferior teams made it through like twice in the history of the league), but the probability of success is minute. Wonder what the percentage will be for a possible Super Bowl birth with the Seahawks going into the playoffs as a #5 seed taking into account the past 5 years of three 2nd round losses, a 1st round loss, and a missed appearance altogether, with the current team that has the worst defense of any Carroll coached squad and Russ yet another year older and another year with less mobility? Should be plenty of time to figure it out at the end of the season with yet another early playoff exit.

 

[pittpnthrs]

What exactly are excuses, other than potential explanations for why bad things occur. "No excuses" is a mindset that can be very useful for the athletes and teams themselves, but is the heights of silliness when cited seriously by fans like they are on the team themselves. Isn't most of what we are doing trying to come up with explanations for what we see on the field?

Excuses are people trying to explain how the 4-7 Giants with a backup QB and RB are all of a sudden a good team because they have a decent defense. Theres a lot of fans making a lot of excuses on this board for a long time.

 

[cymatica]

What exactly are excuses, other than potential explanations for why bad things occur. "No excuses" is a mindset that can be very useful for the athletes and teams themselves, but is the heights of silliness when cited seriously by fans like they are on the team themselves. Isn't most of what we are doing trying to come up with explanations for what we see on the field?

Excuses are people trying to explain how the 4-7 Giants with a backup QB and RB are all of a sudden a good team because they have a decent defense. Theres a lot of fans making a lot of excuses on this board for a long time.

They started the season 0-5, they are 5-2 since then. They have had 2 losses by more than 1 score. Last 7 games, they lost to Philly by 1 and Tampa Bay by 2, so they could very well be 7-5 right now. Not who you play but when you play them.

Let's assume they suck and Seattle should have won convincingly. Seattle would have blown their doors off if 1 player at the most important position doesn't have one of his worse games ever. The gameplan worked, Wilson completely failed executing it. Even after stinking it up all game, he still had a chance to win the game on the final drive. We can blame it on the timeout, but if Wilson played just average for 3 quarters, it would not have come to that.

 

[AgentDib]

Excuses are people trying to explain how the 4-7 Giants with a backup QB and RB are all of a sudden a good team because they have a decent defense. Theres a lot of fans making a lot of excuses on this board for a long time.

Color me unsurprised that fans come up with explanations for how things happen on a discussion board. If you're not interested in discussing those details then what's the point?

Wonder what the percentage will be for a possible Super Bowl birth with the Seahawks going into the playoffs as a #5 seed...

I posted that for you above. You simply multiply the likelihoods of winning each game together, so you can come up with your own estimate. For example, if our three game path is 45%, 40%, 40% then the likelihood of winning all three games is 45% * 40% * 40% = 7.2%.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Someone posted a fairly detailed list of other coaches and how they have fallen short too.

The interesting thing is that Andy Reid would have been on that list too, but for landing Mahomes.

Since a number of fans here insist that Wilson is equivalent in value to Mahomes but Mahomes is just given a more coach that facilitates his offensive value, it stands to reason that some of those coaches could likely produce better results given a Mahomes or a Wilson.

Thing is, Carroll already has a Wilson. And so far, outside of the regular season - he isn't doing a whole lot to win with him in the playoffs. He WAS great in the playoffs back in the LOB days, but since the LOB left...or just since the SB loss, you are could easily argue he underachieved.

So reasonable question, would one of those coaches that facilitate offense better be a better fit to take better advantage of Wilson's offensive value.

Secondary question, (posed by someone else), if Carroll's value is defense and we are not even remotely good on defense - then isn't most of the value Carroll should be contributing not being contributed?


A challenge as Largent pointed out is that Pete is by and far one of the best coaches M-Sat in the NFL. He is the best at building programs and processes to identify talent, develop skill, and elicit greatness in players.

We play like an 11 or sometimes 12 win team against the best teams in the NFL during the regular season. The problem is more, in the past 5 years, we play like an 8 win team in the playoffs. Producing results you would expect from 8 win teams in the playoffs.

So is this a Romar-ish situation where we are complaining about a coach under utilizing talent that we likely never would have noticed or developed if he wasn't here? And if so, does it matter to get this amazing talent if you underachieve with it in the playoffs?

I'm not convinced Pete's normal style of running tough and taking PA deep shots isn't the best situation offensively for Russell. Russ has always run a traditional pro style offensive from college on. Never seeing him operate in an offense you describe, I'm not sure if he'd be better in that situation or not. I personally think all they've needed to do differently over the past few years is be better situationally with the passing game. Whether that's going up tempo and quick to move the chains or just switch to pass first when called for in a game ( like the Dallas playoff game ). I think Russ's strength is efficiency. I question whether or not he could keep that efficiency up consistently enough if you're gonna be real pass heavy like KC has a tendency to do. Andy Reid has his 2013/2014 Hawks right now with a stacked roster on O. In a couple years they'll be in 2015-2020 Seahawk land and we'll see what they do then.

 

[OrangeGravy]

This will be the 6th season with that same repetitive conclusion (not counting the season they didnt even make the playoffs, but you get the jest). Only 5 more years with that book on the nightstand.

Let's say that we do make the playoffs this season (highly likely) and our opponents on the way to the Super Bowl end up being @NYG, @NO, @LAR. That's a tough three game stretch, but the only way that we could have a 0% chance to progress through is if our likelihood in any of those games was 0%. In reality, the lowest our odds in a single game ever get is around 40%, which translates to at least a 6.4% chance (40% ^ 3) of making it through to the Super Bowl this season.

Of course it's easy to be doom and gloom and predict that we have no chance when the actual chance is pretty low. You are very likely be right and can lord it over everybody and there's only a small chance that you will look silly, at which point nobody will care about you posting that we couldn't win back in December.

Saying we can't win with this coach or can win with that coach implies a binary outcome and makes your argument look superficially strong, but the underlying probability differences between coaches is more like 2% with candidate A, 4% with candidate B, 5% with candidate C, etc. It isn't necessary to use hyperbole here because we should be interested in chasing the highest probability possible, even if we are only gaining a percent or two. You don't have to "foresee" that we have a 0% chance of winning in order to suggest there could be a better option.

True. The easiest prediction pre-season for any NFL team is to say they have no chance to win the SB, cause even if you have a great team, the odds are LOW