The debate over Pete Carroll’s future has become increasingly partisan and frustrating
As is usually the case with Seahawks Twitter — a big topic relating to the team has ended up becoming a fractious talking point.
With the season finally set to end on Sunday, things have ramped up recently. An exercise in ‘extreme confirming of priors’ is underway.
All sides are guilty of this. Yet I think those inclined to back the retention of Pete Carroll as Head Coach, while holding an indifferent opinion on Russell Wilson’s future, have started taking things to a new level.
Here’s a tweet from Mike Salk, posted after the Lions game:
The premise that Wilson’s dissatisfaction is limited to a supposed unwillingness to play a brand of football seen against Detroit feels like a take that can be deconstructed.
You don’t need intimate knowledge of the situation to come to the conclusion that Wilson’s issues with the Seahawks aren’t based around Pete Carroll’s desire to feature the running game.
The problems are much more likely to be about the fact they haven’t been able to do it consistently for years, despite setting out to make it a key aspect of the team.
How often, over the years, have the Seahawks actually played a game like they did on Sunday? With supreme balance, the ability to run with great success and get after an opponent on offense?
Now compare this to the occasions, particularly in the playoffs, where the Seahawks have tried to run the ball on offense — failed — conceded easy points on defense and then required the quarterback to dig them out of a huge hole.
This idea that Wilson isn’t interested in an offensive performance structured like the Lions game is plucked out of thin air and presented as a reasonable take. Salk’s tweet has nearly 900 likes, a healthy number.
Yet in truth, it doesn’t come close to properly analysing the situation.
Think how many times over the years the running game has collapsed as soon as Chris Carson got hurt and how much pressure it’s put on Wilson to be the be-all and end-all.
Think how often the offensive line has been pushed around up front, preventing the Seahawks from running effectively to provide balance — despite being set up to be a run-blocking unit first and foremost.
This isn’t about Wilson wanting to throw 50 times a game and not running the ball. It’s about several aspects, all working together to create a wider dissatisfaction:
— The lack of consistency on offense and too often the utter dependency on Wilson to bail the team out (which cannot be denied has happened many times over the years, even if it’s easy to forget these days)
— General poor team building — especially since the 2018 reset — with a particular focus on the fact that since 2012 the Seahawks have never delivered a top-tier offensive line for the quarterback (and barely really tried to)
— Playoff failure — one win in five seasons now — with many playoff exits following a familiar script of game-plan not working, big deficit at half-time and Wilson magic required to make it a game in the second half
— Seeing another quarterback change teams, have significant input in personnel and scheming, before immediately winning a Super Bowl
To limit Wilson’s complaints to ‘he doesn’t want to win with a running back running for 170 yards while he only throws 29 times’ is absurd. Especially when, a year ago, Aaron Rodgers won the MVP award with the Packers running the ball 32 more times than Seattle and having a higher yards-per-game average ranking in the running game than they did in the passing game.
Tom Brady also clearly benefitted from the running game and defense in Tampa Bay.
Not only that — Wilson has made it clear that what we saw in week one against Indianapolis and in week 17 against Detroit is the offense as it was intended to look. Yet so often this year, it hasn’t looked anything like that. Even prior to Wilson’s injury it felt like we were watching the late-2020 offense again against Tennessee, Minnesota, San Francisco and LA.
Some of the blame should be pointed at Wilson’s personal performances which have been well below par, to say the least. Yet it’s Seattle’s inability to recreate what was seen on Sunday consistently that is the broader issue — not that the performance happened and featured the running game as much as it did.
This is where we’re at though. Opinions shared on twitter, without a great deal of thought put into them.
Crafting an article takes time. Often you start writing about one thing and pivot to something else, because you go on a bit of a journey. You research, you think, you evolve your position.
On twitter a thought pops into your head and bang — it’s posted to thousands of people for approval. Once the opinion is uttered, it’s very hard to row back because the fear of losing face often outweighs the perception of being seen to be wrong.
Views spread like wildfire — and rarely there’s any counter arguments to read or hear.
The other problem that is happening, though, is valid arguments are being ignored or conveniently dismissed as this debate roars on.
I’m afraid it feels like the biggest culprits are again those minded to publicly back Carroll remaining in Seattle, with indifference on Wilson’s future.
Recently I saw Brian Nemhauser (Hawk Blogger) post a long twitter thread discussing the situation. He put a lot of weight into a quote from Matt Hasselbeck, who said on 710 ESPN, “They (the Seahawks) will not be successful if they move on from Pete.”
To me that felt like a comment that is easily challengeable. Are we saying that literally no other coach could be successful in Seattle if Carroll departs? That’s quite a claim to make and to me, needs to be explained in greater detail than Hasselbeck provided.
The comments received a lot of attention. Brian’s tweet received +220 likes. Yet similar comments from Brandon Marshall — who like Hasselbeck, spent a season with Carroll in Seattle — didn’t receive the same acknowledgement.
Marshall claimed recently that Carroll’s schemes have become predictable and that his experience was that opponents knew what was coming:
“Everyone knows their book. So now I’m going into the game knowing how to beat their defense. Defensively, it’s not what it used to be. It used to be hard, hard, hard back in the day to beat the Seattle Seahawks and get anything on them. It starts there with philosophy. He has to change his ways.”
Brian then went on to reference that broadcaster Gee Scott had interpreted Kam Chancellor’s recent tweet about wishing to speak to Jody Allen as supportive of Carroll. Yet there’s no acknowledgement that Chancellor liked the following reply in response to his tweet:
Of course, this equally isn’t a clear sign that Chancellor would march into Allen’s office and tell her to fire Pete Carroll. I just think it’s difficult to read anything into Chancellor’s tweet and it shouldn’t be assumed as pro or anti Carroll/Wilson.
In response to the thread, Paul Gallant (formerly of 710 ESPN) questioned why Tyler Lockett doesn’t attend Russell Wilson’s off-season workouts while stating, “All signs point to Russ being about himself.”
That’s quite the 2+2=5 on Lockett, who could have a myriad of reasons for not attending Wilson’s workouts. It’s also quite an accusation to place at Wilson’s door, given he hosts those workouts with teammates in the first place, is the reigning Walter Payton ‘Man of the Year’ and on Sunday, along with wife Ciara, presented a cheque for the $2.7m the ‘Why Not You Foundation’ raised in 2021 for the Immuno Heroes, Seattle Children’s hospital’s program to fight childhood cancer worldwide.
I’m not for a second saying Gallant is suggesting that Wilson is self-centered off the field because clearly the evidence suggests otherwise. Many people hold the opinion that Wilson has tunnel-vision for his own personal career, so it’s not a particularly ‘out-there’ claim.
I just don’t think it’s a take that chimes at all with Wilson the individual. At times it feels like the extreme ambition of Wilson, both personally and for the team, is viewed negatively. Are lofty goals really indicative of a self-centered person?
Brian finally noted that John Clayton had talked about “how he absolutely believes it’s harder to find a great head coach than a franchise QB”. Today another long-standing reporter, Peter King, said, “It’s a lot harder to find a top quarterback than it is to get a coach you can win with.”
Also on Sunday, Davis Hsu posted a lengthy twitter thread to amplify an opinion that Wilson should be dealt.
Among those takes was a tweet claiming: “OBJ (Odell Beckham Jr) knew to stay clear (of Wilson)”. I felt obliged to reply to the tweet, pointing out that this couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m not an insider — far from it. I’d never claim to be. I do know for a fact, however, that OBJ’s reasoning for not signing in Seattle had nothing to do with a lack of desire to play with Wilson.
There’s a pro-Carroll narrative developing that I think needs to be fleshed out more than we’re currently seeing. As more and more people take to Twitter, the radio and elsewhere to back Carroll and lean towards trading Wilson, quite a few flimsy points are being made while a lot of valid points are being ignored.
Here are a few…
Who replaces Wilson if he departs?
The quarterback situation in college football is decidedly poor and the free agent market is abysmal.
This issue is never really acknowledged.
I’ve seen and heard references to ‘drafting a quarterback every year until you find the answer’.
Sure — I suppose that’s an idea. It’s basically buying a lottery ticket every week until you win. Yet the odds are stacked against you ever succeeding — whether it’s the lottery or a quarterback.
The reality is 30 quarterbacks were drafted in rounds 1-2 between 2013-2020. Of that group, you can argue eight truly justified the picks used on them.
That’s a 26% success rate. Or in other words, history says you’ve got a 74% chance of making a bad investment at quarterback in the first two rounds.
Any plan that involves moving on from Wilson should include a clear path to the next signal caller. One is never given.
You never hear a case being made for Carson Strong, Kenny Pickett or any other rookie quarterback eligible in the draft.
Occasionally someone will mention a name like Trent Dilfer. ‘You don’t need a top passer to win a Championship’.
Yet there are thousands of other quarterbacks who were not top-level and didn’t win a playoff game, let alone a Super Bowl. The rare few who do are nearly always exceptionally backed by a generational defense or a complete roster — something that is almost as difficult to achieve as striking gold on a top quarterback.
How are you rebuilding this team if you get picks for Wilson?
This is the weakest draft at the top end in a long time.
The response to this is often, ‘I have read a mock draft or two and they say there’s a few linemen available so that works for me’.
There’s no acknowledgement that a lot of these linemen are being projected well above their talent-range due to the fact there’s a distinct lack of legit first round prospects in this draft.
I’ve reviewed this class in depth. Even the players I really like — such as Northern Iowa’s Trevor Penning — I’d suggest wouldn’t be top-10 picks most other years.
It’s going be a major challenge to launch the Seahawks into a new, exciting era with high picks in April.
People should look at this class and explain why trading your best asset for picks in this draft would be a better move than working to make things better with the quarterback you have.
Why are Pete Carroll and John Schneider the right men to oversee another rebuild?
They were the architects of the 2018-21 reset. They’ve squandered high picks on Rashaad Penny, LJ Collier and Marquise Blair. The 2017 draft was a disaster. They’ve not delivered later round gems to compensate and their record, as such, warrants a high degree of scrutiny. Particularly because they passed on so many talented players at positions of need (TJ Watt, Nick Chubb, Ryan Ramczyk, Jonathan Taylor, Trevon Diggs etc).
Carroll and Schneider spent $58.25m on the following list of players during the 2020 off-season:
Jarran Reed $9.35m
Greg Olsen $6.9m
Bruce Irvin $5.9m
Carlos Hyde $4m
B.J. Finney $3.5m
Brandon Shell $3.475m
Quinton Dunbar $3.421m
Jacob Hollister $3.259m
Benson Mayowa $3.018m
Mike Iupati $2.5m
Cedric Obuehi $2.237m
Joey Hunt $2.1m
Branden Jackson $2.1m
David Moore $2.1m
Geno Smith $887,500
Neiko Thorpe $887,500
Luke Willson $887,500
Phillip Dorsett $887,500
Chance Warmack $887,500
An opportunity to elevate the roster to the next level, blown.
Carroll once said you judge a trapper by his furs. Yet in free agency, has Carroll claimed a fur since Bennett and Avril? That was nine years ago.
The Seahawks have had numerous years where they’ve entered a training camp (or even a regular season) with gaping holes on the roster, then tried to fix the problem on the run. This was evident at cornerback and center this year and pass rush last year.
Then there’s the Jamal Adams trade. Do we really need to go into that again?
What possible justification is there for this pair getting another opportunity to rebuild this team, given their record?
No suitable answer, so far, has been provided.
Instead we hear a lot about the importance of ‘culture’, how difficult it is to replace a good Head Coach and any other convenient pointers that can be tweeted without any detail to form an online argument.
I’m not even sure the ‘culture’ argument is that strong, given it’s difficult to define how you’d describe ‘culture’ within a football team.
I think Carroll has tremendous strengths as a leader of men. I think his willingness to be open-minded and let individuals grow and develop is admirable. He’s taken risks during his Seahawks career that few other coaches would’ve done — and been rewarded emphatically for his boldness.
Yet we’ve also seen one play destroy a potential dynasty, amid a flurry of ridiculous locker-room conspiracy theories surrounding Carroll’s preference on who wins a Super Bowl MVP award. Players rushed to journalists to call the team ‘the Titanic’. Who could forget Richard Sherman ranting and raving at team mates and coaches on the sideline during an actual game — wildly out of control. We hear stories of team mates punching each other before the biggest game in franchise history. The relationship between key members of the defense and the franchise quarterback seemed to be all over the place, based on petty ‘you’re treating him differently’ arguments.
Do I need to go on?
It’s been a circus on multiple occasions.
Therefore, I think the ‘culture’ has been a mixed bag. There have been pro’s and con’s. The environment that tolerates Marshawn Lynch so he can become a living legend is also the environment that saw so much nonsense engulf the team and prevent it from maxing out one of the greatest roster’s in NFL history.
As for the difficulty in replacing a Head Coach — nobody should ever assume this will be easy. Yet the Seahawks have benefitted from being ambitious with two of their last three appointments (Holmgren, Carroll) and they’ve seen first hand the problem with settling (Mora). There’s no reason why this franchise can’t make a great pitch to an exciting candidate for a third time to provide the platform for continued, future success.
After all — I’m sure plenty of people made the same argument for the post-Holmgren era in 2007/08. Yet by 2010, the best coach in franchise history was on board.
Let’s also remind ourselves what the Seahawks were with Carroll pre-Wilson. They were a 7-9 team. Minus Wilson for four games in 2021 — and with the lingering effects of a finger injury stretching over numerous other games — the Seahawks are now a 6-10 team.
With the Jets, Carroll went 6-10 before being fired. In New England, his overall record was 27-21.
This is why he stated a few weeks ago that without Wilson, he wouldn’t have lasted as long as he has in Seattle. So when people talk about replacing a Head Coach as a harder act than replacing a quarterback — I’m not entirely sure Carroll would agree.
Readers of this blog know my preference for the future (and I wrote about my Plan A, B and C here). I think Carroll and Schneider deserve the utmost respect and credit for what they’ve achieved in Seattle. I also think fresh leadership is required and a new era is necessary.
I would like to see an ambitious appointment made at Head Coach and I think the Seahawks should call New Orleans next week and ask them to name a price for Sean Payton. If that deal isn’t possible, call Doug Pederson.
At GM, I’d like to see a Seattle return for Ed Dodds, currently with the Colts.
Yet I recognise none of this is flawless or without risk. I also accept the possibility of a Wilson trade and that’s why we’ve discussed it so much.
I’m also willing to accept two key points that go against my preference:
1. A case can probably be made for retaining Carroll, I just don’t think anyone has made any kind of sufficient effort to establish what it is.
2. I personally have views on how Carroll can turn this around and be a thriving success in Seattle — with Russell Wilson.
On point #2 — I think it’s actually pretty straight forward.
If Carroll was willing to commit to creating a top class staff, I think he can still be a tremendous Head Coach for the Seattle Seahawks.
As mentioned, he is a strong leader and motivator. He could be a great figurehead.
If he was willing to embrace what I call ‘the Nick Saban approach’ — I still think he could enjoy years of success.
This isn’t a new thought either. Here’s what I wrote on October 6th, 2020:
Pete Carroll put together the bulk of his current staff in 2018. It was the start of the re-set with a number of high-profile players and coaches departing.
The Seahawks had completely lost their identity and in an attempt to regain control, Carroll appointed familiar faces and people who would run his system.
It was the right thing to do at the time. Seattle recaptured its identity, avoided a huge downturn in results despite the siphoning-off of talent and quickly got back on track.
Now that they’re three years in it might be time for a rejig. Arguably, they could do with some outsiders to come in and offer new ideas.
Carroll once remarked, “It’s never too late to reinvent yourself”.
I wish he would take his own advice.
Imagine a situation where the Seahawks went out and landed the best coordinators and positional staff money could buy? Carroll — rather than insisting on control of every aspect of the team, doing things the way he aggressively believes in — cedes some control and takes a position of master-motivator and leader.
The X’s and O’s are left up to other people, along with the fine-details of the game-planning and in-game adjustments.
That, to me, is an exciting prospect.
Saban has done it with Alabama. He’s adapted and evolved. He’s committed to bringing in first-rate coaches to make up his staff. Dare I say, along with a relentless recruiting drive, it’s one of the keys to Alabama’s seemingly never-ending run.
They are doing a better job of ‘winning forever’.
Instead of doing this, Carroll has persisted with his guys. Ken Norton as defensive coordinator. He employs one of his sons. Carl ‘Tater’ Smith is not only back in Seattle but Carroll referenced Smith, along with his son Nate, as the people he turns to for a dose of reality.
It was hard to take that seriously.
Carroll is so clear in his mind that he has to do things his way and the only person keeping him in check is ‘Tater’. That’s where we’re at.
Granted there have been times when he’s relented slightly. The first half of last season is a good example, with the ‘Let Russ Cook’ movement. Or, to an extent, the appointment of Shane Waldron (although he wasn’t ‘Wilson’s hand-picked guy’ as many try to suggest).
Yet when Carroll does deviate slightly, it always feels like it happens with a degree of awkwardness. When a tough stretch was experienced after an electric start in 2020, the solution wasn’t to try and become more creative and work a way out of it. It was to reign things in.
When Carroll was asked about the stalling and predictable offense a year ago, having wrestled back control, he refused to acknowledge it — pushing back on Joe Fann (who asked the question) while claiming it was a media creation.
A fortnight later, the same issues were hopelessly exposed in a playoff hammering at the hands of the Rams.
The truth is it doesn’t take much to knock Carroll away from a fresh idea or plan and revert to type.
He’s a control freak — which doesn’t have to be a bad thing. For a lot of his time in Seattle, it’s been to the benefit of the Seahawks that he’s so clear in his vision.
Right now, it feels like what would be best is to employ the best people available and trust them. It feels like Carroll still has a lot to offer, yet his stubbornness to do it his way feels restrictive. It hasn’t allowed the Seahawks to put together the best possible staff or create the best possible formula for success on the field and the results (one playoff win in five years) speak for themselves.
When an argument like this is made, often the pushback is what Salk was arguing at the start of the article. That ‘Carroll’s style’ is defined as ‘running the ball’ and those against it are accused of wanting the quarterback to throw 40-50 times a game.
Carroll’s philosophy goes beyond that. It’s the in-game decision making. Punting, for example, on the opponents 40-yard-line to try and play a field position game, when the modern NFL has clearly shown the benefits of being across situational football.
It’s about being open minded and prepared to trust the people around you and not feeling like you have to take control at the first sign of trouble. Or feeling that reverting to type is the right thing to do when there might be a way to persist with a plan, just by doing things slightly differently.
It’s about a team once considered exciting league-wide trendsetters now appearing stale and stuck in their ways.
I suspect this is another part of Wilson’s issue with the team — which is why it was revealed in an Athletic article last year that he’s often been ignored during game-planning meetings. He wants to have a say, which isn’t unreasonable (especially if you’ve chosen to pay the guy $35m a year). I don’t think he’s been listened to as much as he wants, if at all. I accept though, I can’t say that with any certainty.
It’s also about actually delivering your vision. We all know the kind of football Carroll wants to play. So why has so little been done to pump resources into the trenches and deliver a tremendous running game? Why has the D-line and O-line often been band-aided together, with a running game seemingly dependant on a player who has shown no ability to avoid injuries in a five-year career?
I don’t think Wilson’s concerns are unreasonable or indicative of a player so hopelessly self-centered that he’s lost a grip of reality. I simply think he sees a lot of the same concerns many of us see.
He doesn’t want to waste the second half of his career and live with regrets for the rest of his life. Is that so hard to understand?
Frankly, I think he’s got a point. The trajectory of the Seahawks isn’t trending upwards and what’s happened this year felt predictable.
I want to end with this thought. Carroll has made it clear he has no interest in a rebuild, or at least that he doesn’t think one is necessary. I think this is in part because Carroll, in his 71st year, doesn’t want to spend the last few years of his career trying to win the quarterback lottery again.
Whether you’re pro or anti-Carroll, or pro or anti-Wilson, does anyone benefit from a scenario where Carroll remains, minimal changes occur and they ultimately refuse any trade request from the quarterback?
Do you really want to see a repeat of a year ago? Endless media speculation, an unhappy quarterback and a team not really knowing whether it’s coming or going?
Without serious changes to Carroll’s approach, that’s what the future holds if the status quo remains.
That alone, for me, is why change of some kind is absolutely necessary.
Another off-season like the last one is neither a recipe for 2022 success or the start of an overhaul that many feel is needed.
Yet perhaps, ultimately, we’re all focusing on the wrong thing.
In this article about the Portland Trailblazers, it’s claimed ‘It was never his (Paul Allen’s) intention to gift the franchise to his sister and chairman Bert Kolde’.
Author John Canzano from the Oregonian adds:
Jody Allen sits in her brother’s old seat location, baseline near the basket, at games. She is often referred to as the “owner,” but former Blazers’ president Chris McGowan corrected me in a recent conversation and said, “Jody is the trustee. The team is owned by Paul’s estate.”
Time to sell.
The franchise needs an owner or ownership group that will love it, nurture it, and help it get back on its feet.
Paul Allen placed the NBA team in his estate amid his other assets and instructed that it be liquidated. The aim was to use the proceeds to fuel his life-long passion projects (brain research, space exploration, music, philanthropy). In no way should the Blazers’ remain adrift, future uncertain.
It’s time to honor Paul Allen’s wishes and sell the Blazers to someone who will love them again.
If this is an accurate reading of the situation in Portland, it should be extremely concerning for Seahawks fans too.
Especially when there’s potential for the franchise to similarly drift.
Please consider supporting the blog via Patreon (click the tab below)…
Become a Patron!
