Schneider extended

[NorthHawk]

According to Jay Glazer Schneider has been extended for 4 more years.

[c_hawkbob]

A little surprised, I'd have thought they take this year to see how his HC hire shakes out.

[River Dog]

I just saw that, and I, too, am surprised. But it doesn't prevent the Hawks from cutting ties if they don't mind forking over a little more cash. All this does is commit JS to the Hawks for the next 4 years.

It does help in free agent recruiting to have a stable coaching staff and front office, so in that respect, a long-term agreement with the GM is a good thing.

[NorthHawk]

His and MacDonald's contracts end at the same time. Maybe that is a good thing so if they (or another owner) want to go in another direction in 5 years (the contract is 4 years added on to the existing contract) they can make a clean sweep without loose ends.

[River Dog]

His and MacDonald's contracts end at the same time. Maybe that is a good thing so if they (or another owner) want to go in another direction in 5 years (the contract is 4 years added on to the existing contract) they can make a clean sweep without loose ends.

Ownership can make a "clean sweep" anytime they want so long as they don't mind paying off the contracts. That's how they got rid of Pete even though he still had several years left on his contract. All this does is prevent JS from going to another NFL team.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm always of the mind to operate like the Steelers where you let the head coach and GM go their entire contracts. I think any new HC should get the entire time to learn the job as NFL head coach is not an easy job. It takes time to learn to put it all together and the HC has a much better chance with a supportive GM. I'm ok with this extension. Good practices lead to good outcomes even with the occasional failure. We've already seen how owners with a revolving door at HC and GM turn out and it's not so great unless they're inheriting a championship team that knows how to win. Team building takes time and consistency from the top down.

[River Dog]

I'm always of the mind to operate like the Steelers where you let the head coach and GM go their entire contracts. I think any new HC should get the entire time to learn the job as NFL head coach is not an easy job. It takes time to learn to put it all together and the HC has a much better chance with a supportive GM. I'm ok with this extension. Good practices lead to good outcomes even with the occasional failure. We've already seen how owners with a revolving door at HC and GM turn out and it's not so great unless they're inheriting a championship team that knows how to win. Team building takes time and consistency from the top down.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wouldn't be using the Steelers as a shining example of a successful franchise, at least not recently.

Under Mike Tomlin, the longest tenured NFL coach, the Steelers have been mediocre at best. His playoff record is just 8-11, he hasn't reached the AFCCG since 2016, a SB since 2010, his sole Lombardi (in 2008) has dust and cobwebs on it, and he hasn't gotten past the wild card round since 2017. Pete's teams were no less mediocre, and we let him go for that kind of performance. Last season was typical. The Steelers start out strong then do a huge face plant in the second half of the season by losing 5 of their last 7 down the stretch and a one-and-done playoff appearance.

I don't want to be using the Steelers as a template.

[c_hawkbob]

"Mediocre at best" is an interesting term as you use it. You use it a lot and it usually followed by a example that way more than 50% of the league would kill for. I mean the Steelers ain't top tier but they're way better than middling. Just sayin.

[River Dog]

"Mediocre at best" is an interesting term as you use it. You use it a lot and it usually followed by a example that way more than 50% of the league would kill for. I mean the Steelers ain't top tier but they're way better than middling. Just sayin.

Way more than 50% of the league would kill to be like the Steelers? Really? How much is way more? 20 out of 32 teams? Does that include the Seahawks? I sure as hell hope not.

It looks like I'm not the only one who will exaggerate on occasion in order to make a point.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wouldn't be using the Steelers as a shining example of a successful franchise, at least not recently.

Under Mike Tomlin, the longest tenured NFL coach, the Steelers have been mediocre at best. His playoff record is just 8-11, he hasn't reached the AFCCG since 2016, a SB since 2010, his sole Lombardi (in 2008) has dust and cobwebs on it, and he hasn't gotten past the wild card round since 2017. Pete's teams were no less mediocre, and we let him go for that kind of performance. Last season was typical. The Steelers start out strong then do a huge face plant in the second half of the season by losing 5 of their last 7 down the stretch and a one-and-done playoff appearance.

I don't want to be using the Steelers as a template.

What would you look at as a shining example of a successful franchise recently other than KC and New England? Steelers are tied for all time for Super Bowl wins and been there 8 times.

The teams seem to change, but consistency at coach and QB seems to be the winning combo when you make the right pick to start with. It seems it's a good habit to find a great coach, then let them build until they win. Nearly every team that switches coaches often is worse off than teams that stick with the same coach a long time.

A few years doesn't seem enough time to show if a coach is great or not unless they are crashing and burning.

[NorthHawk]

The key is a top level QB. Look at how much the Commanders improved with the addition of Jayden Daniels and how much Pittsburgh has fallen when Roethlisberger went into decline then retired. It's a common theme in the NFL with only a few exceptions. The Seahawks won't be real contenders until our QB (and IOL) become better than average - if our Defense can dominate but if, say Milroe or someone else becomes a top QB, less pressure will fall on the Defense to win games.

[River Dog]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wouldn't be using the Steelers as a shining example of a successful franchise, at least not recently.

Under Mike Tomlin, the longest tenured NFL coach, the Steelers have been mediocre at best. His playoff record is just 8-11, he hasn't reached the AFCCG since 2016, a SB since 2010, his sole Lombardi (in 2008) has dust and cobwebs on it, and he hasn't gotten past the wild card round since 2017. Pete's teams were no less mediocre, and we let him go for that kind of performance. Last season was typical. The Steelers start out strong then do a huge face plant in the second half of the season by losing 5 of their last 7 down the stretch and a one-and-done playoff appearance.

I don't want to be using the Steelers as a template.

What would you look at as a shining example of a successful franchise recently other than KC and New England? Steelers are tied for all time for Super Bowl wins and been there 8 times.

For one thing, I wouldn't look to more than 10-15 years in the past for an example. You might as well start trumpeting the Cowboys if you're going to laud the Steelers for their Lombardi's.

Interesting that you mention the Patriots. They are clearly the most successful franchise of the past 30 years, yet they tossed out the most successful head coach in the modern era away as if he were yesterday's newspaper. The Steelers should have given Tomlin his walking papers years ago.

The teams seem to change, but consistency at coach and QB seems to be the winning combo when you make the right pick to start with. It seems it's a good habit to find a great coach, then let them build until they win. Nearly every team that switches coaches often is worse off than teams that stick with the same coach a long time.

A few years doesn't seem enough time to show if a coach is great or not unless they are crashing and burning.

That's not always the case. Take a look at the Eagles. Since 2012, they got rid of Andy Reid, arguably the most successful active HC who had taken them to a Super Bowl, got rid of Doug Pederson, their head coach from 2016-20 and who won a Lombardi for them, and now they're the reigning SB champs with Nick Sirianni. The Eagles have had 4 different head coaches during the same period of time that the Steelers had just one. If you're asking for a template, the Eagles are the one I want to use. A management that has a limit on their patience.

I don't want to see a revolving door, either, and I agree that a few years (ie 3 or 4) isn't enough time. But once you get beyond 5 years, they'd better have the right answers if they want to keep their job.

And let's not forget about Jim Mora. Paul Allen got rid of him after just one year. Follow your template and we never would have hired Pete.

[Aseahawkfan]

For one thing, I wouldn't look to more than 10-15 years in the past for an example. You might as well start trumpeting the Cowboys if you're going to laud the Steelers for their Lombardi's.

Interesting that you mention the Patriots. They are clearly the most successful franchise of the past 30 years, yet they tossed out the most successful head coach in the modern era away as if he were yesterday's newspaper. The Steelers should have given Tomlin his walking papers years ago.

After 20 years of being head coach. They are straight trash now.

That's not always the case. Take a look at the Eagles. Since 2012, they got rid of Andy Reid, arguably the most successful active HC who had taken them to a Super Bowl, got rid of Doug Pederson, their head coach from 2016-20 and who won a Lombardi for them, and now they're the reigning SB champs with Nick Sirianni. The Eagles have had 4 different head coaches during the same period of time that the Steelers had just one. If you're asking for a template, the Eagles are the one I want to use. A management that has a limit on their patience.

I don't want to see a revolving door, either, and I agree that a few years (ie 3 or 4) isn't enough time. But once you get beyond 5 years, they'd better have the right answers if they want to keep their job.

And let's not forget about Jim Mora. Paul Allen got rid of him after just one year. Follow your template and we never would have hired Pete.

The Eagles have had consistency at GM and their GM is great at drafting. He's considered one of if not the top GM in the league.

We would have never hired Mora if you followed my template. We all know what happened with Mora. He was a power play hire by Ruskell to push Mike Holmgren out. Paul Allen didn't want him. He was only going to last as long as Ruskell lasted which wasn't long. Not a great example.

The Eagles have had consistency as GM. Rosen has been Eagles GM since 2010. He's a special talent at GM.

If you want to discuss football success, then it can be done a variety of ways. But it always involves consistency from some great element of the franchise. If I were to pinpoint Seattle's most successful football period, it was consistency at ownership. We had an owner committed to winning with the resources to attract high quality coaches. We lost that now, so we're in limbo at the moment until that gets figured out. My gut tells me Seattle is in for a long period of mediocrity because the current ownership isn't that committed to winning and/or isn't very good at it. The loss of Paul Allen will be felt for years and won't change until we get a new owner committed to winning. I don't know when or if that happens. Seattle billionaires aren't that interested in football. We got real lucky with Paul Allen.

It seems it all comes down to finding some amazing talent to win that stays around the franchise. Amazing head coach like a Bill B. Great owner committed to winning like Paul Allen. Some great GM like Howie Rosen for the Eagles. Some great head coach like Bill Walsh for the 49ers. There is always some element within the organization that provides the consistent element for success and greatness. I think we lost ours when Paul Allen died.

I hope to be wrong. But one thing I do know is when you lose that consistent element of success, it can lead to prolonged period of non-contention. That's what we may be in for. It doesn't matter how much you change the coach or players, you keep on losing. The only reason the Eagles became the Eagles in recent years is Howie Rosen and the only reason KC becamse the monster they are is Patrick Mahomes. Andy Reid was a great coach before he went to KC, but he didn't have the QB to dominate until Patrick Mahomes was drafted.

That's how it all works and it's nothing you can guarantee or even improve much as a big part of what makes a team great is luck. Because you never know when some element you hire or draft is going to turn out to be something amazing. Eagles didn't know Howie Rosen would draft as well as he does. When Paul Allen first became owner, we had no idea he would bring Mike Holmgren here then somehow convince Pete Carroll to come to Seattle. Bill B didn't know Tom Brady would be Tom Brady when he put in the game. Patrick Mahomes was drafted 10th overall and now he's one track to be one of the greatest ever.

Some of this stuff is just pure luck. It can't be replicated no matter how much you turn the team over. You bring up the Eagles changing over coaches as some example of success. We can just as easily look at the Washington Commanders, Jaguars, and nearly every other team that has revolving doors at coach being failure. So there is more proof turnover at coach is a bad idea. But really it comes down to there are only so many great head coaches who end up with great players where it all comes together to make a run.

No amount of demanding excellence or any of these other measures you want to take will make it happen any faster and constant turnover has just as much risk of losing someone great.

To sum it up, if we ever contend again or have a dominant period, it will happen like it did to start with: a concerted attempt to succeed where a series of variables falls into place to create the magic.

All you can do as an organizaion is practice sound management princples like giving head coaches, talent, and GMs enough time to build something substantial, then see if the added magic happens to become dominant.

[River Dog]

The Eagles have had consistency as GM. Rosen has been Eagles GM since 2010. He's a special talent at GM.

I was comparing head coaching changes, not GM's.

But since you brought up the subject of GM's, Rosen and JS have been GM's for their teams for roughly the same period of time, but Rosen has been far, far more successful and is currently the king of the hill. The two are not comparable in their success.

The Eagles have not been afraid to pull the trigger if a formula is not working. They're not a revolving door and will give a head coach/GM combo a reasonable period of time as they have with Sirianni, but they are a long way from the Steelers' template of virtually unlimited patience.

[NorthHawk]

The Eagles also put an emphasis on their IOL and aren't afraid to take a good Center early like they did this year even though they just re-signed Jurgens to an extension. Unlike JS who only drafted 1 Center in his tenure here even after trading away his Pro Bowl Center without an heir in place. Successful teams know that sustained success comes from strength up the middle on both sides of the ball.

[Stream Hawk]

The Eagles also put an emphasis on their IOL and aren't afraid to take a good Center early like they did this year even though they just re-signed Jurgens to an extension. Unlike JS who only drafted 1 Center in his tenure here even after trading away his Pro Bowl Center without an heir in place. Successful teams know that sustained success comes from strength up the middle on both sides of the ball.

One difference that can’t be overlooked is Pete had the final say over John until 2024. There may have been some adjustments in draft roles since ~2022.

Otherwise, yes, Rosen has slayed recently. Edit, and Schneider is showing vast improvements since 2022.

[River Dog]

The Eagles also put an emphasis on their IOL and aren't afraid to take a good Center early like they did this year even though they just re-signed Jurgens to an extension. Unlike JS who only drafted 1 Center in his tenure here even after trading away his Pro Bowl Center without an heir in place. Successful teams know that sustained success comes from strength up the middle on both sides of the ball.

Yep. The Eagles consistently have one of the best offensive lines in the league. That's how they can win a Super Bowl with a quarterback like Nick Foles.

[Aseahawkfan]

I was comparing head coaching changes, not GM's.

But since you brought up the subject of GM's, Rosen and JS have been GM's for their teams for roughly the same period of time, but Rosen has been far, far more successful and is currently the king of the hill. The two are not comparable in their success.

The Eagles have not been afraid to pull the trigger if a formula is not working. They're not a revolving door and will give a head coach/GM combo a reasonable period of time as they have with Sirianni, but they are a long way from the Steelers' template of virtually unlimited patience.

No, you are pushing an idea that can't be forced. You keep talking about changing or pulling the trigger on change when not satisfied as though that works for making a team great. There are far more examples of that not working than working. Most owners demand excellence and want to win. Just doing that doesn't mean jack squat if you can't find the personnel to do it. It comes down to finding the guy better than the other guy at some key important position. That's not something easily replicated no matter how much you demand or want or push. Howie Rosen is the unique element in the Eagles making them strong right now. He knows how to draft and put together teams.

For us it was Paul Allen who brought in Holmgren and then Carroll. How exactly do you replicate a billionaire owner willing and able to bring in the best head coaches in the league? Then how do you replicate Carroll putting together one of the all time great defenses with four years of leading in the league in points allowed with a top all time secondary? You can't.

Paul Allen is gone. New management is content to let Schneider take his shot with the new coach he picked. They're giving him enough time to succeed or fail.

So this idea you can keep changing over coaches and GMs and demanding success works is poppycock. Making an NFL team work with any consistency is like investing in a quality stock that will make you money but in NFL terms: you research until you find a guy that you are as sure as possible can do the job, then you give them the time to do the job. You measure the risk of someone unproven like you would an unproven company watching them to see if anything alters your conviction in that investment, you only change if your thesis is altered because the investment is showing no progress or improvement. That's how it works.

You can't force it. This idea of changing all the time if the person isn't succeeding to the level fans want more often leads to Jacksonville or Washington than Philly or KC. Sound management or investing principles in any successful endeavor requires patience.

The reality all Seattle fans better come to terms with is: the Seahawks may be getting sold at some point and the current ownership isn't all that invested in Seattle winning like Paul Allen was. We're going to be in that limbo until the team is sold. I hope we don't get a Ken Behring or a Clay Bennett buying the Seahawks. I sure don't see any Seattle area billionaires stepping up to buy them and continue the winning tradition right now, but we'll see once they get put on the market.

So unless Mike MacDonald starts making some quick progress, expect a return to the old days of mediocrity and occasional contention when we had owners uncommitted to winning. Just pray it doesn't become as bad as the Mariners.