What would it take for you to want Pete fired?

[hox]

If our primary goal wasn't to get to the SB, then we'd do what other perennial loser franchises do.........make GM and coaching changes every 2-3 years and have to trade away all our good players because they eventually refuse to play for our dysfunctional organization anymore.

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Pete has his flaws, and lord knows we've EXHAUSTED those on this forum for over a decade. But the biggest proven barometer of success in the NFL if you look at it's history is first and foremost stability of the GM and head coach. The franchises that perennially win are the ones who find a good coach and GM, and keep them for very long periods of time.

We're now one of those franchises, to just fire Pete just to fire him without a plan in place is the opposite of having a primary goal, which is to win in this league on a consistent basis....and Pete and John have done that, very well.

Some great points. This is really not about the HC at all.

It's about managing irrational fan expectations. They are looking for some mystical unicorn HC - a master schemer, superb game planner, master motivator, expert talent developer, master program builder that can sprinkle some fairy dust on the team and make them go 17-0 every year - this HC doesn't exist.

Holmgren for example, was great with QBs. Maybe a coach like that would take Russell's game to the next level. Or maybe Russell would be like Brett Favre under Holmgren - hero-ballin, gun-slinging it all over the field, scoring a lot of points, but also throwing picks left and right. Also Holmgren could never prepare his teams to win east coast 10 AM games... Pete Carroll teams never had that problem.

The point is there are strengths and weaknesses for every HC. But the single individual that will have the biggest impact on the outcome of any game is the QB. He touches the ball every single snap. And it is his execution or lack thereof which will have the most impact on the final score.

But to these fans, the QB gets all the of the credit for the team's success, but they turn a blind eye to his weaknesses that can ultimately result in a team's failures. Instead the easy guy to blame is the HC. This is bias 101.

Insert these same fans into another fan base, and like you said - they would be calling for Andy Reid's head, Sean Payton's head, Bill Belichick, John Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, Ron Rivera, etc, etc.

As is, PC is no where near the hot seat right now. Because a vocal minority feels the need to rehash this topic during the preseason, post season, after every game, during bye week, during the draft, etc, etc doesn't make it so.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If our primary goal wasn't to get to the SB, then we'd do what other perennial loser franchises do.........make GM and coaching changes every 2-3 years and have to trade away all our good players because they eventually refuse to play for our dysfunctional organization anymore.

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Pete has his flaws, and lord knows we've EXHAUSTED those on this forum for over a decade. But the biggest proven barometer of success in the NFL if you look at it's history is first and foremost stability of the GM and head coach. The franchises that perennially win are the ones who find a good coach and GM, and keep them for very long periods of time.

We're now one of those franchises, to just fire Pete just to fire him without a plan in place is the opposite of having a primary goal, which is to win in this league on a consistent basis....and Pete and John have done that, very well.

Some great points. This is really not about the HC at all.

It's about managing irrational fan expectations. They are looking for some mystical unicorn HC - a master schemer, superb game planner, master motivator, expert talent developer, master program builder that can sprinkle some fairy dust on the team and make them go 17-0 every year - this HC doesn't exist.

Holmgren for example, was great with QBs. Maybe a coach like that would take Russell's game to the next level. Or maybe Russell would be like Brett Favre under Holmgren - hero-ballin, gun-slinging it all over the field, scoring a lot of points, but also throwing picks left and right. Also Holmgren could never prepare his teams to win east coast 10 AM games... Pete Carroll teams never had that problem.
.

And what was the major downfall of Holmgren's tenure here? He wanted total control after the Hutchinson fiasco, and that led to bad GM hires and a dysfunctional front office and chain of command.........which ultimately led to his exit.

So go out and get any coach of your choosing, but he's still going to need a great GM, owner and functional front office to succeed.

To many people on here hyper focus on Pete, like he's responsible for everything.......and granted he does have the most control, but that's not the end of the discussion. It ALL matters.

So if you want to switch coaches? Who's your GM? Is Jody Allen even a good owner that would trust a younger greener coach to take over the entire organization like Pete has done?

Again, all these things matter.

 

[pittpnthrs]

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Reids problem was that he never had a QB until Mahommes in KC. Its tough to win in the post season with Alex Smith, but Reid was getting them there regardless. He took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb. He finally has a franchise QB in Mahommes and now he's been in the last 2 Super Bowls winning one of them. Everybody likes to bring up Belichick too for not winning a Super Bowl in something like 10 years, but he was at least playing in them and taking his teams well into the playoffs for the most part. Neither of those coaches displayed the pattern that Carroll has the Seahawks stuck in.

If you have a great QB and make the playoffs on a standard basis, the team should be able to get past the first and second round of the post season once in awhile. Thats not happening in Seattle. The team is stuck in place and the one common denominator is Pete Carroll. Thats why I want a change. Even if the Seahawks became worse, its worth it because they arent going anywhere with the current makeup.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Reids problem was that he never had a QB until Mahommes in KC. Its tough to win in the post season with Alex Smith, but Reid was getting them there regardless. He took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb. He finally has a franchise QB in Mahommes and now he's been in the last 2 Super Bowls winning one of them. Everybody likes to bring up Belichick too for not winning a Super Bowl in something like 10 years, but he was at least playing in them and taking his teams well into the playoffs for the most part. Neither of those coaches displayed the pattern that Carroll has the Seahawks stuck in.

If you have a great QB and make the playoffs on a standard basis, the team should be able to get past the first and second round of the post season once in awhile. Thats not happening in Seattle. The team is stuck in place and the one common denominator is Pete Carroll. Thats why I want a change. Even if the Seahawks became worse, its worth it because they arent going anywhere with the current makeup.

I agree that we should be going further in the playoffs then we are, but the single component of success isn't just a great QB.......if that was the case guys like Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Roethlessberger, Luck, Ryan, etc would have more SB's, or SB's in the first place.

That's your and other's fatal flaw........you think it's the simple equation of Russell = SB's. It's not, and somehow absolves Russell from being partly responsible for our early playoff exits.

But I know, much easier to blame Pete or playcalling when Russell turns the ball over six times in four games and throws horrific picks in playoff games.

 

[pittpnthrs]

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Reids problem was that he never had a QB until Mahommes in KC. Its tough to win in the post season with Alex Smith, but Reid was getting them there regardless. He took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb. He finally has a franchise QB in Mahommes and now he's been in the last 2 Super Bowls winning one of them. Everybody likes to bring up Belichick too for not winning a Super Bowl in something like 10 years, but he was at least playing in them and taking his teams well into the playoffs for the most part. Neither of those coaches displayed the pattern that Carroll has the Seahawks stuck in.

If you have a great QB and make the playoffs on a standard basis, the team should be able to get past the first and second round of the post season once in awhile. Thats not happening in Seattle. The team is stuck in place and the one common denominator is Pete Carroll. Thats why I want a change. Even if the Seahawks became worse, its worth it because they arent going anywhere with the current makeup.

I agree that we should be going further in the playoffs then we are, but the single component of success isn't just a great QB.......if that was the case guys like Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Roethlessberger, Luck, Ryan, etc would have more SB's, or SB's in the first place.

That's your and other's fatal flaw........you think it's the simple equation of Russell = SB's. It's not, and somehow absolves Russell from being partly responsible for our early playoff exits.

But I know, much easier to blame Pete or playcalling when Russell turns the ball over six times in four games and throws horrific picks in playoff games.

Your wrong. I dont think just because Russell Wilson is the QB of the Seahawks that they should be winning Super Bowls every year, but they should at least be able to get out of the 2nd round of the Post Season sometimes. You throwing the blame on Wilson instead of Carroll is cute. Wilson has to play out of his mind in both the regular season and the post season to overcome horrid game plans just for Seattle to be successful. I know nobody around here seems to remember Russ chucking Carrolls game plan in the 4th quarters of games only to play sandlot to try and win games but I do. The problem isnt Wilson.

 

[hox]

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Reids problem was that he never had a QB until Mahommes in KC. Its tough to win in the post season with Alex Smith, but Reid was getting them there regardless. He took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb. He finally has a franchise QB in Mahommes and now he's been in the last 2 Super Bowls winning one of them. Everybody likes to bring up Belichick too for not winning a Super Bowl in something like 10 years, but he was at least playing in them and taking his teams well into the playoffs for the most part. Neither of those coaches displayed the pattern that Carroll has the Seahawks stuck in.

If you have a great QB and make the playoffs on a standard basis, the team should be able to get past the first and second round of the post season once in awhile. Thats not happening in Seattle. The team is stuck in place and the one common denominator is Pete Carroll. Thats why I want a change. Even if the Seahawks became worse, its worth it because they arent going anywhere with the current makeup.

Basically what you are saying here is that a team's post season success is contingent upon the QB - not the HC.

You are saying Reid has been to SBs because he finally has Mahomes. But didn't make it far in the playoffs because he had Alex Smith. And he took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb.

Did John Fox win a championship with Cam Newton? Or did he win one with Peyton Manning?

Are you starting to see any patterns emerge based on your own logic?

The common denominator for post season success is not really the HC, is it? But is actually the QB.

You overrate a head coaches impact on elimination scenarios.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Reids problem was that he never had a QB until Mahommes in KC. Its tough to win in the post season with Alex Smith, but Reid was getting them there regardless. He took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb. He finally has a franchise QB in Mahommes and now he's been in the last 2 Super Bowls winning one of them. Everybody likes to bring up Belichick too for not winning a Super Bowl in something like 10 years, but he was at least playing in them and taking his teams well into the playoffs for the most part. Neither of those coaches displayed the pattern that Carroll has the Seahawks stuck in.

If you have a great QB and make the playoffs on a standard basis, the team should be able to get past the first and second round of the post season once in awhile. Thats not happening in Seattle. The team is stuck in place and the one common denominator is Pete Carroll. Thats why I want a change. Even if the Seahawks became worse, its worth it because they arent going anywhere with the current makeup.

I agree that we should be going further in the playoffs then we are, but the single component of success isn't just a great QB.......if that was the case guys like Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Roethlessberger, Luck, Ryan, etc would have more SB's, or SB's in the first place.

That's your and other's fatal flaw........you think it's the simple equation of Russell = SB's. It's not, and somehow absolves Russell from being partly responsible for our early playoff exits.

But I know, much easier to blame Pete or playcalling when Russell turns the ball over six times in four games and throws horrific picks in playoff games.

Your wrong. I dont think just because Russell Wilson is the QB of the Seahawks that they should be winning Super Bowls every year, but they should at least be able to get out of the 2nd round of the Post Season sometimes. You throwing the blame on Wilson instead of Carroll is cute. Wilson has to play out of his mind in both the regular season and the post season to overcome horrid game plans just for Seattle to be successful. I know nobody around here seems to remember Russ chucking Carrolls game plan in the 4th quarters of games only to play sandlot to try and win games but I do. The problem isnt Wilson.

I've said Pete is to blame, and I've said Russell also bears responsibility when we fail, as does every QB.

Only one of us thinks it's all on one of these people, and that's you. So if anyone's being simplistic and "cute." It's you.

Let me ask you a question, if we don't get to the SB in 2021, is it still Pete's fault even though he hired Waldron, a Russell approved coordinator? What if Russell stinks in the playoffs again like he did against the Rams.

Will these things still be Pete's fault? Or will you allow yourself to understand that this is a team game, and all share in success, and failure.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Win as a team, lose as a team. QB, Defense, coaching, all of it contributes.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Largent,

There are 3 primary possibilities:

1 - Wilson and the team could do better with this team under a different coach. Carroll's weaknesses are not allowing Wilson to contribute as much as he could.

2 - Wilson and the team would do worse under a different coach. Carroll is actually doing a great job finding talent and developing it (and a gameplan) to compensate for some of the issues.

3 - Nothing changes


We already know what #3 looks like. This team is going to do whatever it did for the past 8 years. Maybe a bit worse.

Maybe you are right, Wilson has made mistakes in the playoffs that have kept us from advancing. If #2 is right we take a risk and lose.

But since we are already just getting roughly the same results every year since the SB loss, it makes sense to at least change in the event there is a path upwards.

This is Pete's ceiling with this team. There is no upside.

With change, we might do worse. Worse than the wildcard is missing the playoffs.

But we have one of the key components to advancing in the playoffs, a great QB. It stands to ask - 'Would another coach that leveraged offense better get us farther?". It seems so given our challenge in the playoffs (div game) tend to be scoring enough.

Is it a risk? A huge one. This is like firing George Karl. You probably do worse. And usually you need a good or great owner to steer you to the next coach, because the best coaches want to work for great owners.

But it isn't crazy or weird or 'entitled', to feel it is worth the risk because we only get this kind of QB once in a few decades.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Why would anyone ever think that the 4th quarter wins where Russ looks amazing aren't also part of PC's game-plan? The probability is quite high that such a plan works as well as it does because of previous game-planning (call it rope-a-dope if you wish) and setting up the opponents. Russ can make those plays because he knows exactly how the defense will respond.

And if Russ thought it was all PC's fault, he'd be the first to know, and there would be more friction than we see between him and the FO, with more attempts by Russ to leave. He is too transparent to do otherwise. When Russ wants Pete gone, I'd probably agree with him.

 

[BASF]

Why would anyone ever think that the 4th quarter wins where Russ looks amazing aren't also part of PC's game-plan? The probability is quite high that such a plan works as well as it does because of previous game-planning (call it rope-a-dope if you wish) and setting up the opponents. Russ can make those plays because he knows exactly how the defense will respond.

Just wait until you find out that they think the defense we face that change to prevent doesn't make a difference in the offense suddenly looking better.

 

[pmedic920]

Fair question and good conversation here.
I can’t add much that hasn’t already been said so I’ll ask another question.

If Pete were to get fired, let’s say for giggles after this season….

Who does anyone want to be his replacement?

Seriously, who has a better system and record, how do we land him?

 

[chris98251]

Fair question and good conversation here.
I can’t add much that hasn’t already been said so I’ll ask another question.

If Pete were to get fired, let’s say for giggles after this season….

Who does anyone want to be his replacement?

Seriously, who has a better system and record, how do we land him?

Chris Pederson, lure him out of retirement, he has had success everywhere in every league and division he went to, he knows how to build success. His system is transferable to the NFL also unlike Kelly's was. He is low key almost Belichick like as well.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Largent,
This is Pete's ceiling with this team. There is no upside..

I guess this is my eternal Hawk glass is always half full optimist, because I don't think we've reached the ceiling with Pete's tenure. The NFL is cyclical, that means there can be multiple ceilings.

- Russell's still in his prime
- Hiring of Waldron, which should give us the type of offense most of us have been screaming for the past 6-7 years
- drafting and player acquisition has been better the past two years
- Defense is one of the deepest since the SB years

So I can still see us making a couple more runs at another SB under the Pete/Schneider/Russell regime.

As I said in my very first post, if this team makes a nosedive this year and we miss the playoffs and Russell starts making noise again that he wants out? Then I'm all for a coaching change.

But IMO even if this happens, I don't think Jody Allen has the stomach like Paul would to fire a coach and GM she just gave extensions to for this very reason, so she WOULDN'T have to make any big organizational decisions until she either decides to sell the team or becomes more entrenched in the day to day operations. Which I doubt she will.

 

[pmedic920]

Largent,

There are 3 primary possibilities:

1 - Wilson and the team could do better with this team under a different coach. Carroll's weaknesses are not allowing Wilson to contribute as much as he could.

2 - Wilson and the team would do worse under a different coach. Carroll is actually doing a great job finding talent and developing it (and a gameplan) to compensate for some of the issues.

3 - Nothing changes


We already know what #3 looks like. This team is going to do whatever it did for the past 8 years. Maybe a bit worse.

Maybe you are right, Wilson has made mistakes in the playoffs that have kept us from advancing. If #2 is right we take a risk and lose.

But since we are already just getting roughly the same results every year since the SB loss, it makes sense to at least change in the event there is a path upwards.

This is Pete's ceiling with this team. There is no upside.

With change, we might do worse. Worse than the wildcard is missing the playoffs.

But we have one of the key components to advancing in the playoffs, a great QB. It stands to ask - 'Would another coach that leveraged offense better get us farther?". It seems so given our challenge in the playoffs (div game) tend to be scoring enough.

Is it a risk? A huge one. This is like firing George Karl. You probably do worse. And usually you need a good or great owner to steer you to the next coach, because the best coaches want to work for great owners.

But it isn't crazy or weird or 'entitled', to feel it is worth the risk because we only get this kind of QB once in a few decades.

Ceiling?

Seriously though, not only have we seen the most successful era under Pete, there is only one team that could be argued as being more successful during the same time period.

Just how dominant can we reasonably expect any coach to be?

What are our expectations, and are they actually reasonable?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What are our expectations, and are they actually reasonable?

Our expectations should be that Pete and John should be competent enough to put together coaching staffs and rosters with a top 5 elite QB to be making deep playoff runs, not every year but I'd say at least 3 out of every 5 years, or 4 out of every 6,7 years, etc.

Of course these expectations should be tempered somewhat if our roster is decimated by injuries and/or our division is extremely tough......of which let's be honest, it is right now. We don't have the luxury of being in a dumpster fire of a division for 15 years like NE's run where they always had the #1 or #2 seed, byes and HFA every year because every team in their division was going 5-11.

Roster and health are important obviously, but so are external things like division strength. It matters.

So if we're being honest, Pete and John have not met expectations the last 5-6 years with the below average drafts, player acquisitions and early playoff exits.

We should all expect better, and I assure you so do they.

 

[Hockey Guy]

What are our expectations, and are they actually reasonable?

Our expectations should be that Pete and John should be competent enough to put together coaching staffs and rosters with a top 5 elite QB to be making deep playoff runs, not every year but I'd say at least 3 out of every 5 years, or 4 out of every 6,7 years, etc.

JFC this place.

 

[knownone]

I think people are overreacting to randomness and ignoring consistency. We haven't been in the top 5 in terms of roster talent since 2016. Injuries to key positions have derailed our best seasons. And we've only recently emerged from cap hell. So as long as we keep making the playoffs, I'm satisfied with Pete's performance.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Basically what you are saying here is that a team's post season success is contingent upon the QB - not the HC.

You are saying Reid has been to SBs because he finally has Mahomes. But didn't make it far in the playoffs because he had Alex Smith. And he took the Eagles to 4 consecutive title games with McNabb.

Did John Fox win a championship with Cam Newton? Or did he win one with Peyton Manning?

Are you starting to see any patterns emerge based on your own logic?

The common denominator for post season success is not really the HC, is it? But is actually the QB.

You overrate a head coaches impact on elimination scenarios.

Its a 2 way street. If your a good coach, you can get good results with a mediocre QB but you might not get over the hump. If a team has a good QB but a crappy coach, they probably will have trouble getting over the hump also. This is where Seattle is right now, so why not eliminate the weakness?

 

[pittpnthrs]

Let me ask you a question, if we don't get to the SB in 2021, is it still Pete's fault even though he hired Waldron, a Russell approved coordinator? What if Russell stinks in the playoffs again like he did against the Rams.

Will these things still be Pete's fault? Or will you allow yourself to understand that this is a team game, and all share in success, and failure.

I'll have to wait and see the games first. If Pete neuters the offense and reverts back to 'Pete Ball' like he always does at some point then he's the problem. If Pete allows his team to be baffled by a specific defensive scheme like a cover 2 for an entire half of a season, then he's the problem. If Pete heads into a post season game with another juvenile game plan like he did against the Rams last year, then he's the problem.

By the way, I fully expect all of that to happen.