A Departure From Pete's Management Style

[River Dog]

I read an interesting article that I thought worth sharing that demonstrates the differences between Pete's style and Macdonald's:

RENTON, Wash. -- When Mike Macdonald was hired by the Seattle Seahawks this past offseason, he brought the Baltimore Ravens' notoriously tough conditioning test with him.

Every NFL player must pass one at the start of training camp in order to practice, and the versions vary by team. This one requires them to complete six 150-yard shuttles, with a time limit on each leg that differs depending on position groups. Not finishing any of the six legs in the designated time means failing the test and having to start it over.

"Never want to do it again," Seahawks wide receiver Laviska Shenault Jr. said. "It's deadly."

It might have been predictable that a few young players would fail such a difficult test, requiring them to start camp on the non-football injury list until they could pass. But to the Seahawks' new head coach, it wasn't acceptable.

"Macdonald was pissed," a source close to a player said.

Macdonald chewed out the players individually, according to team sources, and then brought up the issue in front of the rest of the team in order to drive the point home: You owe it to everyone else to show up in shape.

He told at least one of the players that he'd have been cut on the spot if not for the guaranteed money in his contract, another source close to one of the players said.

If it wasn't already clear to Seahawks players that Macdonald has a different leadership style than his predecessor, Pete Carroll, then that moment left no doubt.

Whereas Carroll took a gentler approach when it came to holding his players accountable, Macdonald -- the NFL's youngest head coach at 37 -- favors an old-school style that includes plenty of tough love. While their philosophies differ, Macdonald still plans to lean on the same defense-and-run-game formula on the field that propelled Carroll to the most wins in franchise history and its lone Super Bowl title.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ho ... 636f&ei=15

[Irish Greg 2.0]

Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love Pete, and all that he did for the franchise.

However, it was massively obvious his feel good/candy a$$ approach wasn't translating to success. Yeah, we were having winning seasons - but the playoff visits curtailed, and when we did make it we usually got bounced easily.

Pete's biggest failure was his choices for coordinators.

There was never an answer for SF and LA. I get it, they had much better rosters (especially SF) - but there was something to be said for Pete and his Staff getting smashed in the face over and over again. Shanahan and McVay owned them. The league solved Pete's defense years ago, especially when they didn't have a clutch of future HOFers patrolling it. It was never a schematically elaborate defense, but they had some absolute war dogs that made life miserable for offenses for many years.

But, then it got figured out. And Pete was a little stubborn and slow to adjust. And then, for some reason, decided Clint Hurtt (!) would be the right one to call it.

A culture change was needed. I was quietly happy to see things like murals being removed (even though they kept a lot of the history), the music being toned down at practice, an emphasis on coaching and teaching, accountability, and the basketball hoop getting removed.

Macdonald - and from what it looks like, his staff as well - are no-nonsense, accountable coaches. It seems to be translating to success.

All that said, we haven't faced a fully manned/really good team helmed by a top tier QB. That will happen Monday night, and even then, the Lions have a lot of injury issues as well.

For me, the big test will be how we handle the 49ers and Rams. I am tired of donating 4 games to them every season.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Was about to post about this same article.

It seems Macdonald's approach is working because he demands the same from himself. I wasn't alive for it, but, if the movie Miracle has any truth to it, it's similar to Herb Brooks. Discipline, hard work, accountability and conditioning; the movie had him (Kurt Russell) say we may not be the best team there, but we will be the best conditioned. Accounts I've read say the US team skated full tilt for the entirety of all their games.

To tag onto Irish Greg, Pete's early years were a perfect storm: his approach + a team in shambles + landing top notch talent throughout the draft (Wagner, Thomas, Sherman, Chancellor, Wright, Wilson, Baldwin) + second chance FAs (Bennett, Avril, Clemmons, Browner, Lynch). Those circumstances never came together again and of course the game that shall not be named.

All that to say, I approve of it. What you do in practice, you do in performance, and he's not cutting them any slack.

[Vegaseahawk]

I read that article this morning & it was like a breath of fresh air to me. I'm seeing accountability as one of the keys to Mike's coaching style. When I read the quote

"Never want to do it again," Seahawks wide receiver Laviska Shenault Jr. said. "It's deadly."

, I had a chuckle & thought back to the Jack Patera story about him denying underperforming players water at practice, lol. Whereas Pete coached up his players with positive reinforcement, Macdonald uses the accountability factor as a primary tool. I look to see penalties reduced moving forward as well.

[River Dog]

I read that article this morning & it was like a breath of fresh air to me. I'm seeing accountability as one of the keys to Mike's coaching style. When I read the quote "Never want to do it again," Seahawks wide receiver Laviska Shenault Jr. said. "It's deadly.", I had a chuckle & thought back to the Jack Patera story about him denying underperforming players water at practice, lol. Whereas Pete coached up his players with positive reinforcement, Macdonald uses the accountability factor as a primary tool. I look to see penalties reduced moving forward as well.

What Patera did back then would be considered a criminal act today. Even back then, it was stupid as all get out. I played high school and college football during that period of time, and all of my coaches not only allowed us to take water breaks, but they also insisted that we drank plenty of it.

I like Macdonald's approach better than I do Pete's, but the real test will come when we lose a game or two. You can say a lot of things and get away with it when you're winning. Lose a couple games and players will start looking for someone to blame.

[Aseahawkfan]

I love a coach that makes conditioning important. If you aren't in good shape, hard to last exerting this hard into the fourth quarter. You have to be well conditioned to play at a high level for four quarters at every position except maybe kicker.

I don't much see Pete as the problem myself at least not for the reasons I see stated. I think coach's have shelf life's. Once it runs out, you need to move on. Hard to know exactly when that is, but a lot of coaches get by on their reputation and the best era they coached over while the team slowly falls into decrepitude or becomes non-competitive.

The trajectory for coaches seems to be:
1. New coach. No attachment to players, thus is able to accurately assess talent. This lack of attachment to players is a huge factor in team building.

2. Winning Era: Has things on lockdown. Team built. Becomes very attached to players. Gets the benefit of the doubt from the crowd.

3. Post-Winning wind down era: Grows too attached to players. Doesn't know when the team needs a full rebuild. Lacks of the will to go back to zero and start over. Talent assessment not as accurate due to being too attached to past players they still believe in rather than admit they were wrong and the player isn't so good. Too close to GM and ownership often getting a pass due to winning era. Lack of focus. Desire to keep competing at that high level as even coaches feel that endorphin high of being the champ and competing in the playoffs. That endorphin high from winning becomes a sort of self-delusion that makes you think your team can still do the job.

That's a brief summary. But once a coach has become so accomplished they have nothing to prove or seek out, I think it is hard for the coach to maintain the same competitive drive that made them what they are. They may still be highly competent, but they lack the cold, calculating, detachment they had when they had one burning goal to prove themselves. Player attachment is a big reason talent assessment falls off when coach's have too big a say in roster management like Pete did. Same thing happened with Holmgren. I expect it as head coach's are human and they hang out with these players all the time, they're bound to get attached to a few of them.

The head coach lifecycle is definitely something ownership has to manage and it's tough because they get attached to the head coach and players' too. Often times when the good times end, you gotta rip it all down and start over. That's hard to do.

That's why I'm glad we finally did it. It was never going to be easy parting from a popular coach like Pete, but it was time likely a few years ago, but they gave him every shot to turn it around including trading the franchise QB, which turned out to be a smart move at least. Russ is likely done and is at best a backup.

[c_hawkbob]

That's why Holmes said even the great coaches have about a ten year shelf life. I'd like to see ten good ones out of MacD.

[River Dog]

I don't much see Pete as the problem myself at least not for the reasons I see stated. I think coach's have shelf life's. Once it runs out, you need to move on. Hard to know exactly when that is, but a lot of coaches get by on their reputation and the best era they coached over while the team slowly falls into decrepitude or becomes non-competitive.

That's why Holmes said even the great coaches have about a ten year shelf life. I'd like to see ten good ones out of MacD.

I was going to say something very similar to these two comments. It isn't that Pete's approach was bad or even out of style, just that players got used to it and were no longer motivated by his bubble gum chewing, rah-rah style. It's a different way of attacking the same problem. Just the fact that he's new and impressionable makes a huge difference.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was going to say something very similar to these two comments. It isn't that Pete's approach was bad or even out of style, just that players got used to it and were no longer motivated by his bubble gum chewing, rah-rah style. It's a different way of attacking the same problem. Just the fact that he's new and impressionable makes a huge difference.

I don't think a coach's management style is that important myself. Pete for all this "rah-rah" talk held players accountable which was what "Tell the Truth Monday" was about. One of the big complaints was Pete held players to different standards, especially the QB. But in my experience, this isn't a new idea at all. QB has always been a special position that is held to a different standard from way, way back. I've never seen QBs held to the same standard as other players. In some ways they get away with more, in other ways less. Everyone is always watching the QB and when you win or lose, a lot of the blame or credit goes to the QB even more than the coach. Pete held players accountable and always preached protect the team with behavior and such.

I think the most important factors in head coaching are:

1.Talent development.

2. General team scheme on offense and defense.

3. Ability to make adjustments in game and between games.

4. Setting standards and expectations for performance and behavior.

I don't much care how the head coach does it as long as they do it. Pete did all of the above. Pete tended to want players on the edge of exploding as he wanted that intensity on the field. He wanted big egos and big performances from guys that felt like they were the best and wanted to prove it. I don't see that as "rah-rah" myself, but to each his own I guess. Pete was more like an NFL Phil Jackson in my opinion where the mental game was very important to Pete and he wanted to make sure to let player personalities express themselves as he felt that was part of the player performing well. You can't stifle a champion's mindset with suffocating discipline. You have to let them be who they are and harness it as much as possible.

You see this with other great players like even Bill B and Bill Parcells letting Lawrence Taylor do what Lawrence Taylor did even though both Bills would be categorized as disciplinarians with most players. But smart head coach's don't try too hard to bring someone in line who just knows how to get things done as you can't coach or teach that extreme level of talent. Pete seemed to understand that part of the psychology of great players.