HawkShack.com

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/17137 ... -schneider

Hopefully Pete is soon to follow.

Yup, done deal, reportedly for five years. Perfect.
Now Carroll is next, and this team is ready to roll for the next good long while.
Here's to another ring or two or three or etc...

Great news.
Once they get Pete re-signed, we can put that other thread to rest and breathe easy.

NorthHawk wrote:Great news.
Once they get Pete re-signed, we can put that other thread to rest and breathe easy.

This is huge because JS and PC are a team, It lowers the odds of a PC bail to LA, IMHO!

obiken wrote:This is huge because JS and PC are a team, It lowers the odds of a PC bail to LA, IMHO!

That's exactly what I was going to say. This announcement significantly increases the odds that Pete will stay here if he doesn't choose to retire.

Are you guys sure about that? IMO signing Schneider is a separate move from Carroll. Id like to see PC retire a Hawk but until this deal gets done there is no guarantee. Pete would be the most sought after FA coach in the history of the game.

Well, it's difficult to get a good working relationship between a Head Coach and GM.
From what we've heard, they really like to work together and the results show it.

On the other hand, Pete might have GM aspirations of his own as he winds down his career.
I'm not sure he could resist getting onto the field and coaching, though if he became a GM.

Hawktawk wrote:Are you guys sure about that? IMO signing Schneider is a separate move from Carroll. Id like to see PC retire a Hawk but until this deal gets done there is no guarantee. Pete would be the most sought after FA coach in the history of the game.

Of course, none of us are not sure. What we're saying is that the odds that Pete would bolt would be lot higher if Schneider were not coming back. Pete is smart enough to realize that not all HC/GM relationships work out as well and this one has, and at his age, he may not want to go to the trouble of breaking in a new GM. It's only a guess, but IMO an educated one.

I tend to agree with you RD, but I have no idea whether he still has the desire to prove his system in another locale.
It would really validate his methodologies and philosophy if he went elsewhere and built a winner with another organization.

It would really validate his methodologies and philosophy if he went elsewhere and built a winner with another organization.

1. I don't think either of those are in question anymore.

2. I think the much more likely scenario of SEA challenging for Super Bowls for the foreseeable future would validate them just as firmly.

LOL, If they dont win and the Rams go to the SB the talk will be different!!!

That's an enormous "if" in that statement... Like a monumental "if".

Rambo2014 wrote:LOL, If they dont win and the Rams go to the SB the talk will be different!!!

Huh? What talk would be different? We haven't won a SB in 2 years and the talk hasn't changed, why would it be different if the Rams win, lol, because all of the sudden they are the better team? The Broncos won it last year and I still think the Hawks have the best roster. The pats won it 2 years ago and the Hawks roster is better. 'IF' somehow the Rams win it next year I feel like I would still rather have the Hawks roster...

On NFL Insiders last night they were stating as though fact that Pete was refusing to sign an extension until they had John locked up.

This makes me happy.

I like the sound of that too, c_hawkbob. I don't know how Pete Carroll would turn his back on one of the best working relationships in the NFL and the chance to really make his mark with a dynasty. That's one dynasty in NCAA and another in the NFL for Carroll's legacy.

This article helps ease any angst.
Apparently it's the way they do things.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... S_seahawks

NorthHawk wrote:This article helps ease any angst.
Apparently it's the way they do things.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... S_seahawks

That article confirms what Obi and I were saying, ie that Schneider's signing increases the odds of Carroll signing.

Only in that he likes to take care of his contract last.

Go back a little over six years and someone tells you that Pete Carroll is quitting USC to coach the Seahawks and he will be in 2 super-bowls winning one within 4 years you would have laughed them out of your space!!! LOL

NorthHawk wrote:This article helps ease any angst.
Apparently it's the way they do things.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/seah ... S_seahawks

It’s thought Carroll and the team/organization wanted to get through that part of the off-season (as well as the paying out of contracts) first before turning to taking care of those in administration, with Carroll likely wanting Schneider’s situation settled before the team took care of him (as was the case a few years ago when Schneider signed a deal through 2016 and Carroll then followed suit later).

Sounds just like they were talking last night. Confirmation.

Uppercut wrote:Go back a little over six years and someone tells you that Pete Carroll is quitting USC to coach the Seahawks and he will be in 2 super-bowls winning one within 4 years you would have laughed them out of your space!!! LOL

I still maintain that one of the motivating factors for Pete taking the head job at Seattle in 2010 was that he knew that the hammer was coming down on his program at USC. I made no bones about my disdain for him, going on a book tour at the same time his college was facing a 2 year bowl ban. It took me a long time to get over that.

But get over it I did. In some things, particularly in my football, I'm a very materialistic person: Just win, baby! And Pete has done that. He can coach my team for as long as he wants.

JS's new contract has dropped the Green Bay clause.
No out if that job became available.

NorthHawk wrote:JS's new contract has dropped the Green Bay clause.
No out if that job became available.

Wow! Nice find, North Hawk! I never saw that. It sounds like JS has more blue blood in him now.

http://sea.247sports.com/Bolt/John-Schn ... t-46479434

While it's true this contract doesn't include an "opt out" Packer clause, according to Schneider it never did. So in essence, it hasn't changed.