Avril, Bruce Irvin: Players tuned out Carroll

[RiverDog]

No wonder Pete's hitting ctrl-alt-del:

“You think about what could have happened,” Avril said (h/t Chris Wesseling of NFL.com) “If we win that Super Bowl, I think we probably would have won another one within the two years that went by. I do think the team would have bought in more to what Coach Carroll was saying,” Avril explained, “instead of going the opposite way of, hey, this is what we thought the foundation of the team was, and that’s not what happened in that particular play.”

Avril also said that “a lot of guys got turned off by the message.”

https://sportsnaut.com/2018/05/cliff-av ... xlix-loss/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ex ... tp&ffid=gz

Our beloved Hawks just couldn't handle adversity. Time for a change.

[NorthHawk]

Yes, I saw that.
It's like you and some others said would happen.
I, on the other hand thought they would be professional enough to overcome it, but was wrong.

[c_hawkbob]

This is on the players (and coaches if applicable) in question and it's evident they had to go in order to move on. In retrospect Pete might have been better doing this last year, although I can't blame him for trying to keep it together with what was a winning team ... last season is the season in which they fell below the line Pete has for minimum acceptability and now they're gone.

Good.

Moving on.

[curmudgeon]

The purge should’ve started on February 2nd, 2015 with Darrell Bevell. Unfortunately the growth was allowed to metastasize and infect the team. Now that treatment has finally started, it will be interesting at Pete’s age whether he can replicate his Seahawk success, but he has to move fast...

[RiverDog]

This is on the players (and coaches if applicable) in question and it's evident they had to go in order to move on. In retrospect Pete might have been better doing this last year, although I can't blame him for trying to keep it together with what was a winning team ... last season is the season in which they fell below the line Pete has for minimum acceptability and now they're gone.

Good.

Moving on.

Agreed that it's on the players. We've all had to overcome adversity at some point in our lives, and even though none of us have played in a Super Bowl, I suspect the emotional challenge of rising above adversity is roughly equivalent. They just didn't have the ability to pick up the pieces and move on to the next challenge. I've lost a lot of respect for some of those players after these revelations. They're acting like spoiled, pampered athletes suffering from a heightened sense of entitlement if they couldn't suck it up and move on.

[Agent 86]

This really isn't surprising or shocking news. Cliff is maybe one of the first to say it out loud, who doesn't come across as a hothead.

I will agree it's ultimately on the players, but you gotta remember, we are talking NFL players here. I don't think anyone on the offense carried it with them, more so it was the defense. They built up their reputation, and feel they were ripped off of a Super Bowl and a place in history by a brutal play call. And given how popular BeastMode was with the defense, you can see where they were gonna ride with that one for a long time as they all feel he should have been given the ball. I think it would have been incredibly difficult to get over it as a player on that defense, but no excuses, they are professional, it should have been done.

It sucks to see some of those guys now gone, but it had to be done, and as most say, probably a year too late.

[RiverDog]

I think it would have been incredibly difficult to get over it as a player on that defense, but no excuses, they are professional, it should have been done.

The defensive players shouldn't have felt that they were ripped off by a bad play call anymore than the offense. Remember, we had a two score lead going into the 4th quarter. The reason why the offense was having to come from behind was that the defense couldn't protect the lead.

[Aseahawkfan]

I knew that loss would kill us. I can't live with it as a fan. I can't imagine a player living with it. If I were a player on that team, I would feel haunted. This isn't adversity. This is a coach making such an egregious mistake that it cost you the opportunity of a life time and it cannot be repaired, fixed, or likely accomplished again in their NFL career. Back to back Super Bowl wins are what separate NFL teams in tiers in this league. How could you not feel betrayed when you were robbed of an accomplishment that would have put you among the all the NFL greats? I don't blame the players or the coaches. This is something so bad that it's hard to get past. It's best to part ways and rebuild/reboot with those that can't move on and those that made the bad decision. I think Pete could have salvaged more players getting rid of Bevell earlier because Bevell will not be trusted againby quite a few players. A guy that can make that bad a decision in a key situation like that is not someone you want running your offense. I will never be able to respect or like Bevell again. I hear that name and I feel angry just hearing it. There is no argument I have heard that he made a smart decision, not a single one. He should have known better. I will always consider him the idiot that cost us a dynasty.

This is the necessary purging after a relationship sours due to some irreparable actions that didn't work out.

[Aseahawkfan]

The defensive players shouldn't have felt that they were ripped off by a bad play call anymore than the offense. Remember, we had a two score lead going into the 4th quarter. The reason why the offense was having to come from behind was that the defense couldn't protect the lead.

Horsecrap. Defense was depleted by injury. Maxwell down. Lane down. Avril down. Offense should have known they had zero room for mistakes. Brady ate Tharold Simon alive. I don't care how many times someone tries to say, "Next man up" or what not, I know from years of watching football that once you're using your bottom tier players against another team's top players (especially Brady and Edelmen), you're in trouble. Brady and Edelman did exactly what you expected to a third tier DB. They ate hie alive to tune of two TDs.

Both sides of the ball were depleted. There was zero room for error. Bevell made a grievous error. None of the players should have gotten over it. You can't trust a coach like that any longer. He should have gone earlier. I would never trust that coach again.

[HumanCockroach]

Only thing that haunts me about the play, even immediately following if I'm honest, was the "we don't change our identity for anyone " mantra, that for whatever reason they changed at the absolute worst possible moment... Seattle was based on multiple option passing, running beast, and defense... yet in that moment, they went to a one read, quick pass, to the 5th string st gunner... wtf?

The complete reversal, adjusting to opponent, instead of sticking to your beliefs is imho what is most puzzling...

The idea that you make the primary target the 7th best offensive option is insane to me.

[RiverDog]

Horsecrap. Defense was depleted by injury. Maxwell down. Lane down. Avril down. Offense should have known they had zero room for mistakes. Brady ate Tharold Simon alive. I don't care how many times someone tries to say, "Next man up" or what not, I know from years of watching football that once you're using your bottom tier players against another team's top players (especially Brady and Edelmen), you're in trouble. Brady and Edelman did exactly what you expected to a third tier DB. They ate hie alive to tune of two TDs.

Both sides of the ball were depleted. There was zero room for error. Bevell made a grievous error. None of the players should have gotten over it. You can't trust a coach like that any longer. He should have gone earlier. I would never trust that coach again.

Hey, I'm the guy that called for the immediate firing of Bevell after that play call. Not many in here agreed with me at the time. Did you?

Yea, we all saw how Edleman turned Simon inside out and all Simon could do about it was beg for PI. But was that the offense's fault? We held NE to 14 points through 3 quarters then gave up 14 in the fourth. The defense had a chance to close out the game and failed. That's a fact.

My point was that there was lots of blame to be spread around for the loss of SB 49, and an intelligent, rational person would have recognized and accepted that reality for what it was, but apparently, some of the defensive players thought that surrendering 28 points with half of those coming in th 4th quarter should have resulted in a slam dunk win.

[Sports Hernia]

Only thing that haunts me about the play, even immediately following if I'm honest, was the "we don't change our identity for anyone " mantra, that for whatever reason they changed at the absolute worst possible moment... Seattle was based on multiple option passing, running beast, and defense... yet in that moment, they went to a one read, quick pass, to the 5th string st gunner... wtf?

The complete reversal, adjusting to opponent, instead of sticking to your beliefs is imho what is most puzzling...

The idea that you make the primary target the 7th best offensive option is insane to me.

Yep, it was a piss poor predictable playcall that NE saw coming from a mile away. The guy that called the play (the now former OC) never took responsibility for his mistake instead he threw his players under the bus.
If the OC would have been 86’ed a day later I honestly believe the following years would have been more successful.

I’m ready for a fresh, hopefully successful start, with both new coords and Solari.

[Aseahawkfan]

Only thing that haunts me about the play, even immediately following if I'm honest, was the "we don't change our identity for anyone " mantra, that for whatever reason they changed at the absolute worst possible moment... Seattle was based on multiple option passing, running beast, and defense... yet in that moment, they went to a one read, quick pass, to the 5th string st gunner... wtf?

The complete reversal, adjusting to opponent, instead of sticking to your beliefs is imho what is most puzzling...

The idea that you make the primary target the 7th best offensive option is insane to me.

What idiot made that call?

[Aseahawkfan]

Hey, I'm the guy that called for the immediate firing of Bevell after that play call. Not many in here agreed with me at the time. Did you?

Yea, we all saw how Edleman turned Simon inside out and all Simon could do about it was beg for PI. But was that the offense's fault? We held NE to 14 points through 3 quarters then gave up 14 in the fourth. The defense had a chance to close out the game and failed. That's a fact.

My point was that there was lots of blame to be spread around for the loss of SB 49, and an intelligent, rational person would have recognized and accepted that reality for what it was, but apparently, some of the defensive players thought that surrendering 28 points with half of those coming in th 4th quarter should have resulted in a slam dunk win.

If I'm the defense, I look at as it we held the best QB in NFL history to 28 points after being depleted by injuries. If I'm the offense, we drove the ball to the 1 yard line with Russell and Beast in the backfield. Then our OC called in a play that our QB executed to the worst possible outcome that had a fairly high probability of occurring given the personnel involved and what was asked of them. Sorry, I don't put the blame around. I put it where it belongs: On Bevell.

I see why Pete kept him the year after because it looks cheap to fire a guy right after an egregious loss like that. I imagine Pete felt like he agreed to that play call and he didn't want to put all the blame on Bevell. He was trying to not completely push all the blame on the guy that deserved it. It cost him time.

You saying get over it is ridiculous. You don't get over something like that. I won't ever get over it as a fan. Not sure I can expect players to get past it. It was a once in a career chance to do the ultimate in the NFL: back to back Super Bowl wins. My OC ruined it with a horrible call. My QB executed the call without question and it went very badly. My HC agreed with his OC's call. I can't ever let that go.

I don't consider any of the guys wrong for feeling the way they do. It's best they go somewhere else where they don't have that history. It's the only way to move on. It's too hard to trust the right thing will be done if the same situation occurs again. It's always going to be in your mind no matter how much you tell yourself otherwise that a once in a career chance was ruined. Once in a career as in you will never get that chance again in your life basically. Not ruined because you screwed up or you played badly or anything you had control of. Screwed up because one guy made one of the dumbest play calls in NFL history.

It's too hard to overlook and get on with it for some guys. It feels that way to me. I'll always appreciate Pete getting us our first Super Bowl win. If he retires without another Super Bowl win, I'll always remember what should have been. And the name Bevell will always bring a scowl to my face and cause me to feel angry inside.

[RiverDog]

If I'm the defense, I look at as it we held the best QB in NFL history to 28 points after being depleted by injuries. If I'm the offense, we drove the ball to the 1 yard line with Russell and Beast in the backfield. Then our OC called in a play that our QB executed to the worst possible outcome that had a fairly high probability of occurring given the personnel involved and what was asked of them. Sorry, I don't put the blame around. I put it where it belongs: On Bevell.

I see why Pete kept him the year after because it looks cheap to fire a guy right after an egregious loss like that. I imagine Pete felt like he agreed to that play call and he didn't want to put all the blame on Bevell. He was trying to not completely push all the blame on the guy that deserved it. It cost him time.

You saying get over it is ridiculous. You don't get over something like that. I won't ever get over it as a fan. Not sure I can expect players to get past it. It was a once in a career chance to do the ultimate in the NFL: back to back Super Bowl wins. My OC ruined it with a horrible call. My QB executed the call without question and it went very badly. My HC agreed with his OC's call. I can't ever let that go.

I don't consider any of the guys wrong for feeling the way they do. It's best they go somewhere else where they don't have that history. It's the only way to move on. It's too hard to trust the right thing will be done if the same situation occurs again. It's always going to be in your mind no matter how much you tell yourself otherwise that a once in a career chance was ruined. Once in a career as in you will never get that chance again in your life basically. Not ruined because you screwed up or you played badly or anything you had control of. Screwed up because one guy made one of the dumbest play calls in NFL history.

It's too hard to overlook and get on with it for some guys. It feels that way to me. I'll always appreciate Pete getting us our first Super Bowl win. If he retires without another Super Bowl win, I'll always remember what should have been. And the name Bevell will always bring a scowl to my face and cause me to feel angry inside.

I am not saying that the defense played poorly or that they were healthy. Given the circumstances, they ultimately held New England to their season average 28 points. But our offense played well, too, as we scored above our season average of 22 points, did not turn the ball over for the first 59.5 minute of the game, and outgained New England in total yardage despite not having a true 'star'..our #1 receiver was a no name Chris Mathews. Russell Wilson's QB rating was 10 points higher than Brady's. Beast had a 100 yard game. Both sides played a great game, and it was a shame that it all came down to that one huge boner pulled by Bevell.

IMO firing Bevell following that game would have sent a signal to the team that everyone is accountable for their actions, even if it was one singular play call. I've seen coaches cut players for one really bad mistake. Chuck Knox got rid of Manu Tuiassosopo, a former 1st round draft pick, after he drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that put an opponent into FG range in the final seconds of a game we lost. Assistant coaches should be no different. Pete's otherwise very admirable traits of being loyal to his players and coaches and taking the blame himself, prevented him from doing what would have been the best decision for the team in the long run.

Do you remember our arguments back in 2010 when Pete Carroll was hired? I felt that he didn't have enough balls, that he was too rah rah, a Pollyanna, passed superlatives of his coaches/players around like they were candy, a cheerleader type. I was wrong about a lot of things about Pete, but not that part of his personality. In that situation, ie the week after SB 49, we needed Chuck Knox in command, not Pete Carroll.

[HumanCockroach]

What idiot hired him? Kept him afterwards? What idiot didn't audible? That's a slippery slope asf... I'm not into the blame game, but ultimately multiple things were wrong with the play, the call was poor, the execution was mediocre, the timing was ridiculous, the change in philosophy was shocking, that wasn't just Bevfool...

I don't blame just the kicker when Seattle loses by 3 and the QB has thrown multiple picks in the Redzone, or the line, when the qb has adequate time but holds the ball forever, I don't blame the corners, when the D line lets the QB sit in the pocket for 20 seconds, or the punter when a kick is blocked, and the line played the look out block...

Unfortunately that's football, Bevfools call was poor, the execution was mediocre, Carroll's acceptance of the play was poor, the change in philosophy at that moment was BAFFLING and can't be explained, hence the thing that bothered me immediately, and still bothers me to this day.

Poor decisions are made by coaches, mediocre or poor execution happens on plays, philosophies don't typically change just cuz.

[NorthHawk]

Unfortunately that's football, Bevfools call was poor, the execution was mediocre, Carroll's acceptance of the play was poor, the change in philosophy at that moment was BAFFLING and can't be explained, hence the thing that bothered me immediately, and still bothers me to this day.

I think it was as simple as the play caller outsmarted himself.
Pete said a pass play would have to be called at some point if they didn't score to stop the clock if it was required, but I think they just tried to be too cute and it cost them the SB and ultimately the team.

[RiverDog]

I think it was as simple as the play caller outsmarted himself.
Pete said a pass play would have to be called at some point if they didn't score to stop the clock if it was required, but I think they just tried to be too cute and it cost them the SB and ultimately the team.

I'm not convinced that making sure we had 3 plays from the 1 was the smart thing to do. First of all, there's the possibility that New England could have called a timeout if they felt that we were going to score. Secondly, I'll take my chances on two of our best scoring plays from the one, pass or run, rather than making it a priority to use all available downs.

But back to the OP. We lost, and instead of picking up the pieces like Buffalo did when Scott Norwood missed a makeable FG to deny them a Lombardi and go on to play in another 3 straight SB's, we went to separate corners and played the blame game. Very disappointing.

[Clem7]

But back to the OP. We lost, and instead of picking up the pieces like Buffalo did when Scott Norwood missed a makeable FG to deny them a Lombardi and go on to play in another 3 straight SB's, we went to separate corners and played the blame game. Very disappointing.

And this says it all. ^^^

I would hope that all players would use their "peed off" mood from the result to focus on the following year to get back to the Big One instead of feeding an emotional monster that serves no good purpose.
It happened. Mistakes happen. Turn a negative into a positive.
Certain players bloomed after that game from the hungry winners to the too big for their britches syndrome to the detriment of the team.

[Aseahawkfan]

I am not saying that the defense played poorly or that they were healthy. Given the circumstances, they ultimately held New England to their season average 28 points. But our offense played well, too, as we scored above our season average of 22 points, did not turn the ball over for the first 59.5 minute of the game, and outgained New England in total yardage despite not having a true 'star'..our #1 receiver was a no name Chris Mathews. Russell Wilson's QB rating was 10 points higher than Brady's. Beast had a 100 yard game. Both sides played a great game, and it was a shame that it all came down to that one huge boner pulled by Bevell.

Agreed.

IMO firing Bevell following that game would have sent a signal to the team that everyone is accountable for their actions, even if it was one singular play call. I've seen coaches cut players for one really bad mistake. Chuck Knox got rid of Manu Tuiassosopo, a former 1st round draft pick, after he drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that put an opponent into FG range in the final seconds of a game we lost. Assistant coaches should be no different. Pete's otherwise very admirable traits of being loyal to his players and coaches and taking the blame himself, prevented him from doing what would have been the best decision for the team in the long run.

Holmgren had the same issue. That loyalty makes the players play hard, but obviously it can hurt too.

Do you remember our arguments back in 2010 when Pete Carroll was hired? I felt that he didn't have enough balls, that he was too rah rah, a Pollyanna, passed superlatives of his coaches/players around like they were candy, a cheerleader type. I was wrong about a lot of things about Pete, but not that part of his personality. In that situation, ie the week after SB 49, we needed Chuck Knox in command, not Pete Carroll.

We interpret things differently. In my opinion Pete has too big of balls. He sometimes thinks he can make things happen that can't because of his over-sized balls. He'll do stuff like, "I"ll take Beast and recover him." This worked great. Then he thinks, I did it with Beast. I can do with Harvin. Big explosion in our face. He does unconventional things like take some guy with great physical measurables or who never played a position before and turn him into an effective player, then think he can do it again and again. Or he'll go for a TD, when he should kick a FG because he's Pete Carroll and he can make it happen. As far as Pete's balls go, he has over-sized balls which make him do stupid things.

What we needed the week of Super Bowl 49 was Pete Carroll. A guy that can inspire a team missing all its stars to play well enough to beat the New England Patriots with no name Chris Matthews as our number one receiving option and a crappy O-line working to get Beast a 100 yard game. I doubt Chuck Knox would have made that happened.

What we needed for that one play at the end of the game was Bill Belichick's level of calculation and coldness. Someone that didn't have big balls, but a cold, calculated attitude that looked and said, "Our pieces versus their pieces. I have Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson in the backfield. I have a stacked defense in the middle. I have a QB that can roll out and a RB that can catch and run. Roll out to the right, read-option run play with Marshawn and Russell. Do it." That's what we needed. Nothing clever or spectacular. We needed bread and butter thinking in that situation, not cleverness or overthinking.

Suffice it to say I do not agree with your assessment of Pete, never have and never will. Pete's big problem has never been what you see this rah-rah stuff you keep bringing up. After all these years what I would like to see is sometimes Pete needs to use conventional thinking in some plays rather than the unconventional thinking he seems to default too in some key situations. Basically, he needs to learn to discern when bread and butter will get the job done. Kick them field goals. Call his surefire plays. Don't get cute on defense.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not convinced that making sure we had 3 plays from the 1 was the smart thing to do. First of all, there's the possibility that New England could have called a timeout if they felt that we were going to score. Secondly, I'll take my chances on two of our best scoring plays from the one, pass or run, rather than making it a priority to use all available downs.

But back to the OP. We lost, and instead of picking up the pieces like Buffalo did when Scott Norwood missed a makeable FG to deny them a Lombardi and go on to play in another 3 straight SB's, we went to separate corners and played the blame game. Very disappointing.

We didn't go to three straight Super Bowls or it likely would have been forgotten. Instead a once in a lifetime opportunity was squandered. They kept losing in the playoffs again until it descended. Like I said after that loss, this would be like a dagger in the heart of this team. The only fix was win again, which didn't happen.

I'll take the one Super Bowl win and one loss over the four consecutive losses always and forever. What a cursed team that was.

[RiverDog]

I'll take the one Super Bowl win and one loss over the four consecutive losses always and forever. What a cursed team that was.

I'd take one Lombardi period over any number of losing SB appearances. Buffalo and Minnesota are known as Super Bowl losers, always a bridesmaid but never the bride. I wouldn't want to wear that on my back when I go into enemy territory. Eagles fans were teased unmercifully by their divisional partners for not having a ring. A Lombardi means everything to fans like us.

But Buffalo's feat of 4 straight SB appearances is getting more traction amongst football historians as it really is a very admirable accomplishment...except that New England has a chance to match that feat this year, and they've already won 2 of the past 3.

[I-5]

I still blame Tharold Simon, the worst CB I've ever seen play in a Hawks uniform. He looked clueless whenever I saw him play long before the SB. It was too easy for Brady and his receivers to fool him out of his shoes. I guess part of the blame goes for the coaches who thought he could succeed in the pros. He's out of the league at 28.

[RiverDog]

I still blame Tharold Simon, the worst CB I've ever seen play in a Hawks uniform. He looked clueless whenever I saw him play long before the SB. It was too easy for Brady and his receivers to fool him out of his shoes. I guess part of the blame goes for the coaches who thought he could succeed in the pros. He's out of the league at 28.

I think that saying Simon was the worst Seahawk CB ever is a bit of a stretch as we've had some pretty lousy CB's, but there's no doubt that he was the weak link that Brady and Edleman picked on during the 2nd half of that game, and all Simon could do was beg for pass interference. It was embarrassing, and you're right, his play probably had more to do with our losing that game than Russell Wilson's interception.

Like I said, as there is in most losses, there's a lot of blame to be spread around. There's no excuse for the defense reacting the way that they did.

[RiverDog]

We interpret things differently. In my opinion Pete has too big of balls. He sometimes thinks he can make things happen that can't because of his over-sized balls. He'll do stuff like, "I"ll take Beast and recover him." This worked great. Then he thinks, I did it with Beast. I can do with Harvin. Big explosion in our face. He does unconventional things like take some guy with great physical measurables or who never played a position before and turn him into an effective player, then think he can do it again and again. Or he'll go for a TD, when he should kick a FG because he's Pete Carroll and he can make it happen. As far as Pete's balls go, he has over-sized balls which make him do stupid things.

That's not the type of balls I was talking about. Pete's not afraid to take a risk, whether it's in his game management or his bringing in certain personnel, and in that sense, I agree with you. But I get the impression that he doesn't have the guts it takes to really get into a player's face (or a coach for that matter) from time to time like Mike Holmgren did, and as a consequence, some players, like Percy Harvin, pick up on that reluctance and take advantage of it. It's a personality trait that I suspect was a cause of veteran players "tuning out" Pete, leading to the break-up of the team. It also helps explain why Pete's teams are always one of the most penalized teams while Holmgren's were the exact opposite. Players don't fear Pete like they feared Holmgren.

What we needed the week of Super Bowl 49 was Pete Carroll. A guy that can inspire a team missing all its stars to play well enough to beat the New England Patriots with no name Chris Matthews as our number one receiving option and a crappy O-line working to get Beast a 100 yard game. I doubt Chuck Knox would have made that happened.

Agreed. I wasn't expressing my preference of the two men in a general sense, just for one moment in time. I wish we had Chuck Knox as coach for one week, that week following the SB loss. IMO he would have been more likely to have fired Darrell Bevell during that week, which would have set a standard for everyone else.

What we needed for that one play at the end of the game was Bill Belichick's level of calculation and coldness. Someone that didn't have big balls, but a cold, calculated attitude that looked and said, "Our pieces versus their pieces. I have Marshawn Lynch and Russell Wilson in the backfield. I have a stacked defense in the middle. I have a QB that can roll out and a RB that can catch and run. Roll out to the right, read-option run play with Marshawn and Russell. Do it." That's what we needed. Nothing clever or spectacular. We needed bread and butter thinking in that situation, not cleverness or overthinking.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way might have been that we were a little too calculating, insisting that we utilize all 4 downs rather than running the play thought to have the best chance of scoring on each available down.

Suffice it to say I do not agree with your assessment of Pete, never have and never will. Pete's big problem has never been what you see this rah-rah stuff you keep bringing up. After all these years what I would like to see is sometimes Pete needs to use conventional thinking in some plays rather than the unconventional thinking he seems to default too in some key situations. Basically, he needs to learn to discern when bread and butter will get the job done. Kick them field goals. Call his surefire plays. Don't get cute on defense.

We each have our own opinions, and I'm not going to be so arrogant as to claim that mine is the correct one. But I do have quite a bit of evidence I can point to that supports my contention. However, my opinion on this one subject should not be interpeted as a general disapproval of Pete. I still think he's one of the top coaches in the game.

[I-5]

I think that saying Simon was the worst Seahawk CB ever is a bit of a stretch as we've had some pretty lousy CB's, but there's no doubt that he was the weak link that Brady and Edleman picked on during the 2nd half of that game, and all Simon could do was beg for pass interference. It was embarrassing, and you're right, his play probably had more to do with our losing that game than Russell Wilson's interception.

Like I said, as there is in most losses, there's a lot of blame to be spread around. There's no excuse for the defense reacting the way that they did.

OK I might have exaggerated slightly calling him the worst-ever, but it feels that way with the way he was hyped as the future quintessential prototype for what a Hawks CB could be. Even Sherman was promoting him that way. He looked the part on paper, but he looked clueless and over-aggressive once the ball was snapped. Kerry Justin comes to mind as well, but with him it was more about his physical limitations of being undersized and not particularly fast. Simon is a worse offender IMO since he has all the physical tools, but a huge underachiever.

[idhawkman]

Not gettting "over" that SB loss is on the team captains. It was the captains and leaders of the team that started sitting out practices, etc. Yes, it was a bone headed call. Yes, I wanted Bevel fired at the time - heck I was calling for his firing all during that season. But with all that said, the leaders on the team have to lead and they failed in that task.

Note: the happiest person in the world after that play was not the NE fans, nor any of the players or coaches. It was the pope because in an instance, Bevel made millions of people jump up and yell, "Jesus Christ!!!!"

[Aseahawkfan]

That's not the type of balls I was talking about. Pete's not afraid to take a risk, whether it's in his game management or his bringing in certain personnel, and in that sense, I agree with you. But I get the impression that he doesn't have the guts it takes to really get into a player's face (or a coach for that matter) from time to time like Mike Holmgren did, and as a consequence, some players, like Percy Harvin, pick up on that reluctance and take advantage of it. It's a personality trait that I suspect was a cause of veteran players "tuning out" Pete, leading to the break-up of the team. It also helps explain why Pete's teams are always one of the most penalized teams while Holmgren's were the exact opposite. Players don't fear Pete like they feared Holmgren.

Not sure why that matters. Never heard of Belichick doing the same thing. Pete takes care of things off the field with that kind of stuff, not on it.

Holmgren's hot temper had the same effect as Pete's in the Super Bowl. He lost it in 2005. Lost focus and couldn't get the team back under control. The offense lost it and came unglued. I bet money Pete would have gotten Hass and the guys refocused believing they could win regardless of the refs over what happened with Holmie.

For whatever reason you like seeing a Head Coach yell at someone that makes a mistake or acts up rather than take care of it off the field.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way might have been that we were a little too calculating, insisting that we utilize all 4 downs rather than running the play thought to have the best chance of scoring on each available down.

Reread what I wrote. You misinterpreted what I wrote. I said we needed bread and butter and they overthought it. It wasn't cold and calculating. It was hot and overthinking that messed us up.

We each have our own opinions, and I'm not going to be so arrogant as to claim that mine is the correct one. But I do have quite a bit of evidence I can point to that supports my contention. However, my opinion on this one subject should not be interpeted as a general disapproval of Pete. I still think he's one of the top coaches in the game.

I have more evidence to support your opinion as wrong. The rah-rah crap was thrust on Pete when he came into the league from college and you keep on about it, though it's only in your mind and the mind of his critics.

You don't build one of the most physical and dominating defenses of the last decade that earned a nickname and put themselves in the record books without being a hard-nosed, disciplined, inspiring, and intelligent head coach. Pete may talk a certain way, but he thinks every bit like an old school defensive coach focused on results and hard, physical football on both sides of the ball. You've never sat back and looked at the real character of this team. You see a few guys acting up and blame Pete for it when these same guys would act up anywhere. Their success magnified their personality. Pete let them be as long as they produced. He didn't make them who they are. Guys like Holmgren or Knox would have gotten rid of some of these guys they couldn't control to the detriment of the team. Like I doubt Holmgren drafts a Sherm or trades for a Marshawn. Yet those two players have been some of the most memorable and amazing Seahawk players we've ever had.

I wouldn't confuse Pete's willingness to take outspoken or willful players as lacking discipline or being rah-rah. Pete's as physical as they come. He's hard-nosed and he teaches hard-nosed football. He teaches the kind of football the walks the edge of too aggressive. He took some chances that didn't work out. It's also part of what made this the best Seahawks team in history. No coach we've ever had has built a more physical or intimidating team including Chuck Knox. Even you have to recall that as much as Holmgren was a disciplinarian, the Seahawks were considered soft and finesse when he was coach on both sides of the ball.

We're going to miss the hard, aggressive football Pete brought to Seattle when he's gone. We've never had a tougher team in Seattle than the team we had under Pete Carroll on both sides of the ball mentally or physically. That type of team would not have been built by some undisciplined, rah-rah coach.

[RiverDog]

For whatever reason you like seeing a Head Coach yell at someone that makes a mistake or acts up rather than take care of it off the field.

Anger and its byproduct, fear, is a powerful motivator if it's used very sparingly and in appropriate moments. Mike Singletary over used his anger, which shouldn't be surprising as his mentor, Mike Ditka, also over used his own. It's just my opinion, but I just don't see Pete using this tool. It's not part of his personality. He gets mad at refs during a game, but he seldom gets mad at his players or even an occasional testiness with reporters.

I have more evidence to support your opinion as wrong. The rah-rah crap was thrust on Pete when he came into the league from college and you keep on about it, though it's only in your mind and the mind of his critics.

I have no desire to get into a pizzing contest over who has more supporting evidence for their opinion. I was merely stating that I was not just whistling Dixie, that I had justifiable reasons to base my opinion on.

You don't build one of the most physical and dominating defenses of the last decade that earned a nickname and put themselves in the record books without being a hard-nosed, disciplined, inspiring, and intelligent head coach. Pete may talk a certain way, but he thinks every bit like an old school defensive coach focused on results and hard, physical football on both sides of the ball. You've never sat back and looked at the real character of this team. You see a few guys acting up and blame Pete for it when these same guys would act up anywhere. Their success magnified their personality. Pete let them be as long as they produced. He didn't make them who they are. Guys like Holmgren or Knox would have gotten rid of some of these guys they couldn't control to the detriment of the team. Like I doubt Holmgren drafts a Sherm or trades for a Marshawn. Yet those two players have been some of the most memorable and amazing Seahawk players we've ever had.

A coaching philosophy is one thing. It does not require a tough disciplinarian to acquire certain players or to coach a team a certain way. What I am talking about is a managerial style. One of the toughest disciplinarians of all time, Vince Lombardi, was an offensive coach, and one of the most humble, soft spoken of coaches, Tom Landry, was a defensive coach (both ironically were at one time coordinators on the same team).

Even you have to recall that as much as Holmgren was a disciplinarian, the Seahawks were considered soft and finesse when he was coach on both sides of the ball.

Good example. As I said above, you're talking about a coaching philosophy whereas I am talking about a managerial tool. They are not one and the same. Holmgren recruited a different type of player than Pete did, had a different philosophy both on offense and defense. But there's no doubt in my mind that Holmgren was the stronger disciplinarian of the two, and one supporting fact was the difference how penalized the two coaches teams were....and please, don't argue that Pete's teams are more penalized because they're more aggressive. His teams are amongst the leaders in pre snap penalties.

We're going to miss the hard, aggressive football Pete brought to Seattle when he's gone. We've never had a tougher team in Seattle than the team we had under Pete Carroll on both sides of the ball mentally or physically. That type of team would not have been built by some undisciplined, rah-rah coach.

Agree with your first two sentences. Don't completely agree with the last.

[HumanCockroach]

That's a pretty huge assumption. There's zero way to forecast what type of team will be here, or what type of coach will be leading said team. For all any of us know, the next HC will instill a tougher team, with more success. Ultimately none of us have the ability to foresee the future.

I wasn't an enormous supporter of the Carroll selection, based on the lack of previous NFL success. He was a .500 coach, with little extended success and had done exactly the same in Seattle the first two years here, obviously, selections, and success increased dramatically, which took us to previously unattained levels.... simply zero way to accurately see what the future holds, and that goes for pretty much every player, coach or fo person.

Ultimately the aggressive style can and should be credited to Carroll (as well as the coaches under him) , as well as selecting the players necessary to accomplish what was done ( along with Schneider) ... BUT... the "toughness" isn't coaches, that's players, and IF you're going to give all credit, unfortunately, you have to give all blame as well. The selections were made, if credit is given for said selections, than issues with those selected go along with it.

Always seems to be where I get attacked. So be my guest. I don't see only bad, or only good... whether it be the line, coach, QB or kicker.... there's no one player, coach or FO person that's absolute garbage, or they would not be employable. Very little black and white in my world, always gray.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's a pretty huge assumption. There's zero way to forecast what type of team will be here, or what type of coach will be leading said team. For all any of us know, the next HC will instill a tougher team, with more success. Ultimately none of us have the ability to foresee the future.

I wasn't an enormous supporter of the Carroll selection, based on the lack of previous NFL success. He was a .500 coach, with little extended success and had done exactly the same in Seattle the first two years here, obviously, selections, and success increased dramatically, which took us to previously unattained levels.... simply zero way to accurately see what the future holds, and that goes for pretty much every player, coach or fo person.

Ultimately the aggressive style can and should be credited to Carroll (as well as the coaches under him) , as well as selecting the players necessary to accomplish what was done ( along with Schneider) ... BUT... the "toughness" isn't coaches, that's players, and IF you're going to give all credit, unfortunately, you have to give all blame as well. The selections were made, if credit is given for said selections, than issues with those selected go along with it.

Always seems to be where I get attacked. So be my guest. I don't see only bad, or only good... whether it be the line, coach, QB or kicker.... there's no one player, coach or FO person that's absolute garbage, or they would not be employable. Very little black and white in my world, always gray.

Track history indicates having a coach that accomplishes as much as Carroll is very rare. It would be nice to be wrong, but unlikely. Unless we hire Jim Harbaugh, then maybe we have another great run.

[HumanCockroach]

That's easy to say now, and only now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Carroll prior to 2013 was a mediocre coach at best in the NFL. That's simply the truth not a dig, much the way Bellichick was in Cleveland. Nothing of note.

I don't know what created that specifically, but until 2013, carol's record wasn't impressive, .500 coach that was very definition of a mediocre record ( exactly .500, exactly half his seasons made playoffs, playoff record years he made playoffs exactly .500. Never winning more than a single postseason game in the playoffs).

You can attempt to dismiss that, or ignore the conversations at the time if you would like, I'm simply pointing out that insisting you or anyone knows the future isn't really a solid position to take.

It isn't unheard of for not only maintaining level of competitiveness for great coaches, but exceeding that competitiveness, it may not be "common" but it certainly not unheard of or crazy either.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's easy to say now, and only now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Carroll prior to 2013 was a mediocre coach at best in the NFL. That's simply the truth not a dig, much the way Bellichick was in Cleveland. Nothing of note.

I don't know what created that specifically, but until 2013, carol's record wasn't impressive, .500 coach that was very definition of a mediocre record ( exactly .500, exactly half his seasons made playoffs, playoff record years he made playoffs exactly .500. Never winning more than a single postseason game in the playoffs).

You can attempt to dismiss that, or ignore the conversations at the time if you would like, I'm simply pointing out that insisting you or anyone knows the future isn't really a solid position to take.

It isn't unheard of for not only maintaining level of competitiveness for great coaches, but exceeding that competitiveness, it may not be "common" but it certainly not unheard of or crazy either.

How many Beilchick's has New England had? How many Carroll's have the Seahawks had? Sure, nothing is impossible, merely improbable.

Carroll always had an impressive track record on the defensive side of the ball. Carroll had an amazing college record. He only had four years of HC experience to base opinions of his ability to be a head coach on. It's why I want Jim Harbaugh if Carroll leaves. Harbaugh is a proven commodity. Everywhere he goes, given enough time, things improve. He wants that Lombardi. You get a little crazy on the sidelines, but some people think bad things about Carroll. I don't care as long as they get results.

[RiverDog]

How many Beilchick's has New England had? How many Carroll's have the Seahawks had? Sure, nothing is impossible, merely improbable.

Carroll always had an impressive track record on the defensive side of the ball. Carroll had an amazing college record. He only had four years of HC experience to base opinions of his ability to be a head coach on. It's why I want Jim Harbaugh if Carroll leaves. Harbaugh is a proven commodity. Everywhere he goes, given enough time, things improve. He wants that Lombardi. You get a little crazy on the sidelines, but some people think bad things about Carroll. I don't care as long as they get results.

I wouldn't characterize Pete's college record as "amazing." He took a program that was .500ish prior to his arrival, had huge recruiting advantages and a reputation unmatched by any football program on the west coast, got them over the hump and turned them into national champions. But he left it in a shambles, skipping town and leaving his successor with an empty cupboard and 2 years worth of sanctions. Hairball's performance at Stanford was much more impressive, taking a team that was 1-11 before his arrival, hamstrung by huge recruiting disadvantages, and turned them into a top 10 program.

Pete's best coaching effort BY FAR has been during the time he's been with the Seahawks. Take that feather out of his cap and his head dress is pretty bare.

[HumanCockroach]

That's 6 yrs of mediocre head coaching at the NFL level, whether you want to wash the first two years in Seattle or not, I assure you they did indeed happen... and prior to 2013, defensive success or not, he never came close to accomplishing what he did that year forward. Honestly, he's fortunate he got that third year, many with those many years of mediocre success don't get that much rope. His college success more than likely saved his job.

I'm not interested in debating it, I'm simply discussing the truth, the actual statistics of his career prior to everything coming together. No where in this entire thread have I knocked the man, but somehow you've taken discussing how no one can see the future as some form of shade cast Carroll's way.

Lmfao

[Aseahawkfan]

That's 6 yrs of mediocre head coaching at the NFL level, whether you want to wash the first two years in Seattle or not, I assure you they did indeed happen... and prior to 2013, defensive success or not, he never came close to accomplishing what he did that year forward. Honestly, he's fortunate he got that third year, many with those many years of mediocre success don't get that much rope. His college success more than likely saved his job.

Carroll stated when hired that he insured he had enough rope to build a team. Allen did not expect him to turn things around overnight. Allen isn't that dumb. He knows building anything to extraordinary level takes time.

I'm not interested in debating it, I'm simply discussing the truth, the actual statistics of his career prior to everything coming together. No where in this entire thread have I knocked the man, but somehow you've taken discussing how no one can see the future as some form of shade cast Carroll's way.

Lmfao

You obviously were interested in debating it, which is why you responded as often as you did. It's a boring time. Why not debate it? As usual you're reading things that aren't there. I don't "throw shade", I merely state what is. Emotional content doesn't usually enter my mind in these debates, merely facts, history, or something that is concrete. I don't believe a one year stint at the Jets, three years at New England, or a few years here is a sufficient track record to measure a head coach.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wouldn't characterize Pete's college record as "amazing." He took a program that was .500ish prior to his arrival, had huge recruiting advantages and a reputation unmatched by any football program on the west coast, got them over the hump and turned them into national champions. But he left it in a shambles, skipping town and leaving his successor with an empty cupboard and 2 years worth of sanctions. Hairball's performance at Stanford was much more impressive, taking a team that was 1-11 before his arrival, hamstrung by huge recruiting disadvantages, and turned them into a top 10 program.

Pete's best coaching effort BY FAR has been during the time he's been with the Seahawks. Take that feather out of his cap and his head dress is pretty bare.

Your bias that you can't get over concerning Pete shows through every time you post about him.

It was amazing. .500-ish in college at a school like USC is bottom feeder. I read the USC story. That once storied franchise had been in the dumps for quite a while. They hadn't had a National Championship since 1978. Pete won them two (yeah, I know one was vacated) and took them to a third. He put USC football back on the map. He turned USC into a NFL factory and a primetime television.

Yeah. He left and they fell into the toilet. I know you blame him. And I don't. I read that entire investigation. It was a clear example of how dumb college football is and why I don't watch it. Just as I predicted, you found that what Pete was blamed for was happening at a ton of schools including the legendary John Wooden''s school. It comes down to if you get caught and to what degree they will punish you. It happens. Doesn't take away that Pete's USC run was an amazing run and brought that school back from the dead. Now even with the sanctions done and USC competing again, they still haven't come close to reaching where Pete had them prior to his leaving.

I get it. Stick in the mud, overly critical Riverdog wants to hang on to his Pete Carroll's too lax attitude without questioning whether what the NCAA did was the more immoral and wrong decision. I get. We'll never agree on it.

And yeah, what Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford was amazing. That's why I'd take him as a head coach. He's a had driver that will build a winning team.

[RiverDog]

It was amazing. .500-ish in college at a school like USC is bottom feeder.

The bottom feeders of college football are teams like Oregon State, Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Iowa State. At the time Carroll took over at USC, they were basically treading water. He did a great job turning them into National Champions, but it wasn't a Herculean task as you seem to want to assign it. It would be analogues to the return of Florida State, Clemson, and Notre Dame to the NC discussion. Those schools also hit some soft spots in their programs.

I read the USC story. That once storied franchise had been in the dumps for quite a while. They hadn't had a National Championship since 1978. Pete won them two (yeah, I know one was vacated) and took them to a third. He put USC football back on the map. He turned USC into a NFL factory and a primetime television.

USC had a monopoly in the LA area during Pete's tenure. No NFL in the 2nd largest market in the country. Again, an admirable but not "amazing". He should receive a lot of credit for it. And you're quick to cite his NC teams, but you seem to overlook how by 2009, Pete's last year, they had already started to decline, losing 4 conference games and falling to 5th place in the Pac-10. The year following Pete's departure and before the sanctions started to take effect, under is protégé Lane Kiffen, they had a similar season, 8-5 overall and 5-4 in the conference.

In 2009, Pete had 3 players taken in the 1st round and 2 in the 2nd and 11 players taken overall. The year before he had 4 first rounders and 3 second rounders. But 2010, the year after Pete left, marked a change. USC had no first round picks and two 2nd rounders, 7 taken overall. 2011 saw just 1 first round pick and no 2nd rounders, so it's clear that the talent level had already started to fall. That's why I said that he left a relatively empty cupboard and IMO one of the reasons why he picked that particular time to get out of Dodge.

Yeah. He left and they fell into the toilet. I know you blame him. And I don't. I read that entire investigation. It was a clear example of how dumb college football is and why I don't watch it. Just as I predicted, you found that what Pete was blamed for was happening at a ton of schools including the legendary John Wooden''s school. It comes down to if you get caught and to what degree they will punish you. It happens. Doesn't take away that Pete's USC run was an amazing run and brought that school back from the dead. Now even with the sanctions done and USC competing again, they still haven't come close to reaching where Pete had them prior to his leaving.

I read the entire NCAA report, too, several times. I don't blame Pete for how they got to that point. He had very little experience in college football and zero experience as a HC as he'd been in the NFL for 16 years, so IMO he was unfamiliar with the college game...recruiting, booster clubs, alumni, school administration, SAT tests, parents, et al. It's my feeling that he dismissed all these non football tasks as unimportant and delegable to an assistant and left it at that. He did not follow up, did not ask questions like "where does that poor black kid get the money to drive a $50,000 car? I blame Pete for not sensing that something was amiss and choosing to look the other way. He was the piano player in the whorehouse.

I get it. Stick in the mud, overly critical Riverdog wants to hang on to his Pete Carroll's too lax attitude without questioning whether what the NCAA did was the more immoral and wrong decision. I get. We'll never agree on it.

I don't like sanctions and wish there were a way the NFL could discipline players like Reggie Bush that leave the college that made them into a million dollar marketable commodity in shambles while he makes his millions in the NFL. Same with Pete. He did not have to pay a dime for the way he left USC. The NCAA is a de facto minor leagues for the NFL, they should take some responsibility for how they procure their players and coaches that misuse the system.

And yeah, what Jim Harbaugh did at Stanford was amazing. That's why I'd take him as a head coach. He's a had driver that will build a winning team.

He hasn't had the same success at Michigan as he did at Stanford and the Niners. It would require the right fit as he has a rather abrasive personality and can't work with just anybody. But if Pete left and we replaced him with Hairball, I wouldn't object.

[HumanCockroach]

You're confusing clarifying what I'm saying, as debating something, isn't like I haven't been told I was saying something I simply haven't, repeatedly, for years at a time in this forum.