Defense since 2017

[Aseahawkfan]

Edit. I will respond for River Dog when Asea asked for better coach examples than Pete. I was listening to the Mina Kimes podcast yesterday ranking top 10 coaches. Love her, btw. I think she had Pete at # 10. Her 1 was Reid of course. The guest host also agreed with her there. Her 2nd was Shanahan. I actually do think he has proven to be better than Pete. Then there were several other coaches like John Harbaugh, Tomlin, McVeigh, the new Let’s Ride boss, McDermont, Belichick - all well before Pete. Kimes is a huge homer, but she couldn’t place Pete above any of those coaches. I personally love what Pete gave our city from 11-14’, a little less after the bad call/throw, & the recent drafts are keeping hope. However his mastery of coaching is wearing thin.

Reid was Pete before his run in KC.

Most of those other coaches have the same hardware as Pete and fewer playoff appearances, so not sure how you rate them better.

The only coaches clearly better than Pete since he's been in Seattle are Reid (after Mahomes) and Bill B. Carroll knows how to win. But like every coach in the league, he needs a quality QB and players.

You rate coaches by ability to get a team in the playoffs and then get to and win the Super Bowl. Carroll is one of the better at doing that if he has the pieces. I'm good waiting for another run unless we get another proven performer.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wouldn't necessarily take Hairball. IMO he's overrated, inherited a full cupboard with the Niners then presided over their decline into obscurity. He left the Niners in an absolute shambles, The Niners were 8-8 in his last season then went 5-11, 2-14, 6-10, and 4-12 in the four years following his departure. Good coaches don't leave their teams in that kind of shape. Besides, Hairball has a corrosive personality. It's not a given that he'd be able to work with a GM like Pete does with John. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't hire him, only that it's not a given that he'd be the right man.

Horsecrap. Harbaugh took a team that hadn't been to the playoffs in 8 years and got them turned around in year 1. He got them to a conference game, a Super Bowl, and a conference game going to the playoffs 3 of 4 years. Year 4 he fell off after opponents figured out Colin K's weak game. But Colin K was chosen by someone else. Then they missed the playoffs the next 4 years with Harbaugh gone after Harbaugh and the GM disagreed on personnel management. Only now are they contending again with Shanahan.

Then he went to Michigan and made them a contender again.

So don't sell me the 49ers had a full cupboard. They hadn't done crap for 8 years before Harbaugh got there. They didn't do crap for 4 years after he left. He had very little do with picking the groceries which is why he left.

Harbaugh knows how to get a team to win and run through walls for him. Harbaugh is one of those guys that's proven he can get a team to win and if you give him enough time and good players, he'll win it all.

[RiverDog]

Horsecrap. Harbaugh took a team that hadn't been to the playoffs in 8 years and got them turned around in year 1. He got them to a conference game, a Super Bowl, and a conference game going to the playoffs 3 of 4 years. Year 4 he fell off after opponents figured out Colin K's weak game. But Colin K was chosen by someone else. Then they missed the playoffs the next 4 years with Harbaugh gone after Harbaugh and the GM disagreed on personnel management. Only now are they contending again with Shanahan.

Then he went to Michigan and made them a contender again.

So don't sell me the 49ers had a full cupboard. They hadn't done crap for 8 years before Harbaugh got there. They didn't do crap for 4 years after he left. He had very little do with picking the groceries which is why he left.

Harbaugh knows how to get a team to win and run through walls for him. Harbaugh is one of those guys that's proven he can get a team to win and if you give him enough time and good players, he'll win it all.

The fact that they hadn't been to the playoffs for so long allowed them to stock up on some high draft picks. All the pieces were in place when Hairball arrived, and after a couple of good years, he drove the team into the ground.

Michigan is a top 10 program with huge recruiting advantages over 95% of their competition, so 'turning it around' is no great feat. Not impressed.

If Hairball is the best you can come up with, I'll stick with Pete.

[trents]

There are just too many variables to be able to rate these coaches with any kind of objectivity. One thing I would look for is the ability of a coach to revive floundering franchises and make them into contenders. If the coach in question has a track record of this, especially if he has done it in more than one place, I put a lot of stock in that because he is not starting with a stacked deck.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The fact that they hadn't been to the playoffs for so long allowed them to stock up on some high draft picks. All the pieces were in place when Hairball arrived, and after a couple of good years, he drove the team into the ground.

Michigan is a top 10 program with huge recruiting advantages over 95% of their competition, so 'turning it around' is no great feat. Not impressed.

If Hairball is the best you can come up with, I'll stick with Pete.

There's lots of instances of coaches going to big programs with recruiting advantages and then not capitalizing. Florida hasn't had a coach succeed since the Tebow days. Lloyd Carr started faltering towards the end of his career and Rich Rod couldn't turn it around after that for Michigan. Miami and Texas are two schools that should be able to pull great recruiting classes but it hasn't translated into success for their coaching staffs for quite some time. Jimbo Fisher at TAMU has had top rated classes for the last few years, and he's yet to have any major success.

Yes, Harbaugh is in a great spot to be a head coach, but he deserves credit for making the most of it. Building a post-season contending program is easier some places compared to others, but it isn't easy.

To the sub topic, if we are talking any coach regardless of availability, Andy Reid is no brainer over Pete. Belichek has the rings, but he's been only okay since Tom Brady left. I wouldn't take Jim Harbaugh over Pete, but I'd take him if Pete left. I like McVay a lot too. Seeing as how none of these coaches are available and likely won't be any time soon, I'm happy to stick with Pete. As stated before, he was nearing the end of my patience until the Russel Wilson trade and drafting well with the wealth of draft capital. I still enjoyed watching the team last season; despite their short comings, they were showing flashes of the hungry group that looked poised to start making legit runs to the Super Bowl. Pete looks like he's getting his mojo back, but I need to see if they can turn the corner.

[trents]

I like Doug Pederson a lot. He can turn a floundering franchise around and into a contender.

[RiverDog]

The fact that they hadn't been to the playoffs for so long allowed them to stock up on some high draft picks. All the pieces were in place when Hairball arrived, and after a couple of good years, he drove the team into the ground.

Michigan is a top 10 program with huge recruiting advantages over 95% of their competition, so 'turning it around' is no great feat. Not impressed.

If Hairball is the best you can come up with, I'll stick with Pete.

There's lots of instances of coaches going to big programs with recruiting advantages and then not capitalizing. Florida hasn't had a coach succeed since the Tebow days. Lloyd Carr started faltering towards the end of his career and Rich Rod couldn't turn it around after that for Michigan. Miami and Texas are two schools that should be able to pull great recruiting classes but it hasn't translated into success for their coaching staffs for quite some time. Jimbo Fisher at TAMU has had top rated classes for the last few years, and he's yet to have any major success.

Yes, Harbaugh is in a great spot to be a head coach, but he deserves credit for making the most of it. Building a post-season contending program is easier some places compared to others, but it isn't easy.

Oh, I'll give Hairball credit. You're right, not anybody can step into even a perfect situation and succeed. But I don't think it's a worthy enough achievement to warrant special consideration over other viable candidates. I'm more likely to look at his NFL resume than I am anything he's done at the college level, and I'm underwhelmed by Hairball's stint in SF. Plus, don't forget the rift he had with his GM Trent Balke. I don't have any idea if Hairball was in the wrong or not, but it takes two to tango, and it would be a big risk to bring in a corrosive personality like him and expect him to meld with guys like Schneider.

To the sub topic, if we are talking any coach regardless of availability, Andy Reid is no brainer over Pete. Belichek has the rings, but he's been only okay since Tom Brady left. I wouldn't take Jim Harbaugh over Pete, but I'd take him if Pete left. I like McVay a lot too. Seeing as how none of these coaches are available and likely won't be any time soon, I'm happy to stick with Pete. As stated before, he was nearing the end of my patience until the Russel Wilson trade and drafting well with the wealth of draft capital. I still enjoyed watching the team last season; despite their short comings, they were showing flashes of the hungry group that looked poised to start making legit runs to the Super Bowl. Pete looks like he's getting his mojo back, but I need to see if they can turn the corner.

In addition to the above, I'd toss in Shanny's name, too. His teams win no matter who the QB is. And, I like Mike McDaniel, the HC at Miami.

In all honesty, I wouldn't hire Belichick. IMO he's much like Pete, a few months beyond his shelf life. I'd much rather hire an unproven Millennial than trying to make things work with the old-fashioned Boomers.

And, I'll have to toss in my generic disclaimer. I am NOT advocating letting Pete go, at least not yet.

[Aseahawkfan]

The fact that they hadn't been to the playoffs for so long allowed them to stock up on some high draft picks. All the pieces were in place when Hairball arrived, and after a couple of good years, he drove the team into the ground.

Michigan is a top 10 program with huge recruiting advantages over 95% of their competition, so 'turning it around' is no great feat. Not impressed.

If Hairball is the best you can come up with, I'll stick with Pete.

Michigan's record speaks for itself before and after Harbaugh.

You talk about standards and I have them too, which is why resumes are important to me. Harbaugh's resume indicate a coach that can turn things around and quickly.

Same as Pete indicates a coach that if given the groceries can get the job done as well.

Sorry, I don't feel like going with some no name coordinator and hoping we picked right. I know every coach starts out as a coordinator and either proves they can take the next step or doesn't, but the garbage pit is littered with coordinators who couldn't take the next step. They still need all the pieces in place.

I prefer Allen's method of finding proven coaches who can have done enough to show they can get a team playoff bound and ready, then give them time to take the next step. Holmgren had that. Pete had that. And Harbaugh has that.

If we get rid of Pete, then I want another proven resume rather than take a chance on a no name coordinator unless we're handing them a complete team like Walsh did Seifert or something similar.

[RiverDog]

The fact that they hadn't been to the playoffs for so long allowed them to stock up on some high draft picks. All the pieces were in place when Hairball arrived, and after a couple of good years, he drove the team into the ground.

Michigan is a top 10 program with huge recruiting advantages over 95% of their competition, so 'turning it around' is no great feat. Not impressed.

If Hairball is the best you can come up with, I'll stick with Pete.

Michigan's record speaks for itself before and after Harbaugh.

You talk about standards and I have them too, which is why resumes are important to me. Harbaugh's resume indicate a coach that can turn things around and quickly.

Same as Pete indicates a coach that if given the groceries can get the job done as well.

Sorry, I don't feel like going with some no name coordinator and hoping we picked right. I know every coach starts out as a coordinator and either proves they can take the next step or doesn't, but the garbage pit is littered with coordinators who couldn't take the next step. They still need all the pieces in place.

I prefer Allen's method of finding proven coaches who can have done enough to show they can get a team playoff bound and ready, then give them time to take the next step. Holmgren had that. Pete had that. And Harbaugh has that.

If we get rid of Pete, then I want another proven resume rather than take a chance on a no name coordinator unless we're handing them a complete team like Walsh did Seifert or something similar.

Pete was far from a proven NFL coach when Allen hired him. We tend to forget that he was fired from his only previous HC jobs and succeeded in college at a top 10 program similar to what Hairball has done at Michigan. There aren't many coaches that can make the transition from the colleges to the pros. The football landscape is littered with college coaches that failed in the NFL, the most recent of which are Kliff Kingsbury, Urban Meyer, and Matt Rhule. Pete was the exception, not the rule.

And you overlooked a bad hire that Paul Allen made: Jim Mora Jr. You can't tell me that he was a proven coach. But he had the balls to cut bait after just one season when it became clear he'd lost the team, something that a lot of owners wouldn't have done. I'm not sure if Jody has that same degree of courage.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Hairball. I'm not changing your mind and nothing you've said or can say will change mine.

[Aseahawkfan]

Pete was far from a proven NFL coach when Allen hired him. We tend to forget that he was fired from his only previous HC jobs and succeeded in college at a top 10 program similar to what Hairball has done at Michigan. There aren't many coaches that can make the transition from the colleges to the pros. The football landscape is littered with college coaches that failed in the NFL, the most recent of which are Kliff Kingsbury, Urban Meyer, and Matt Rhule. Pete was the exception, not the rule.

And you overlooked a bad hire that Paul Allen made: Jim Mora Jr. You can't tell me that he was a proven coach. But he had the balls to cut bait after just one season when it became clear he'd lost the team, something that a lot of owners wouldn't have done. I'm not sure if Jody has that same degree of courage.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on Hairball. I'm not changing your mind and nothing you've said or can say will change mine.

Pete was a head coach that took New England to the playoffs 2 of 3 years and then went to run one of the most successful college runs in the country. He was hungry to prove he could take his show back to the NFL. He succeeded beyond expectations.

And you know the Mora hire was Ruskell, not Allen. He gave Ruskell a chance to run the team with Holmgren gone as he chose Ruskell over Holmgren to give him a shot. He saw one year of that and course corrected after he convinced Carroll to return to the NFL under the conditions that Carroll would take. The rest is the best Seahawks run in team history.

I know what's going on here. It's what you call thinking the grass is greener somewhere else while looking in the window at the current flavors of the month whether Reid in KC or McVay in St. Louis. Still don't think either one is better than Pete and if Pete had Mahomes, we would be doing that well. Russ was good, but he was no Patrick Mahomes.

I'm 100 percent sure Pete can win another Super Bowl if John obtains the talent needed including a franchise QB. What I'm not sure about is John will hit again on the talent needed to do the job. To me this is a league of talent first, coaching second, and other factors after that like health. If you don't have the talent, no amount of coaching will win the big game. You can have a lot of talent, but bad coaching will stop you from winning the big game.

We've seen what Pete can do with top flight talent. But the talent has fallen off. You can't make all those bad trades and failed draft picks and expect to do well. I hope the talent acquisition is finally back where it should be.

[RiverDog]

I'm 100 percent sure Pete can win another Super Bowl if John obtains the talent needed including a franchise QB.

So in other words, if Pete doesn't win another SB, it's John's fault. That's a big 'if', and makes the first part of your statement a moot point. It's what we used to call in racquetball a pre-registered excuse: "My back is killing me today!"

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Besides catching the breaks throughout the season and avoiding injuries, I don't know of any coach that wins anything without top-flight talent. Belichek needed Brady; Reid needed Mahomes; Ravens and Seahawks needed all-world defense. Pete and John have shown they can get it done; they are trending towards doing it again.

[tarlhawk]

Many interesting posts and "takes"...a lot of merit can be found in "context". The LOB era was a defense built and molded for the era it existed in. RBs were still featured and the "middle of the field" was still "untapped" with the exception of elite WR like Jerry Rice. LB and Safeties often assassinated WR with true intimidation...the notion of a "defenseless" receiver just didn't exist. Bone jarring hits at the point of contact with a WR as the receivers hands catch the pass and before they pull it into their body were common.

Guess what? ("rules" change as the NFL caters to tv ratings...which favor explosive scoring not "boring" 3 yds and a cloud of dust or dominating defenses that keep a lid on scoring) The current NFL landscape favors high scoring passing and Pete is adapting...this last draft signaled strengthening the key passing attention required to regain our footing and attain dominance once again.

JSN added to DK and Tyler (coupled with Geno's arm talent) head our offense onward and upward...while our secondary has incredible depth in corners AND safeties. JSN and Spoon have revitalized the players they are expected to replace...Mike Jackson and Dee Eskridge. Both have exploded in early camp and off season making real tangible depth in our corner and WR rooms.

Our designated pass rushing tandem of DT and Nwosu has been injected with 2nd round youth (Mafe/Hall). Dre'Mont Jones is the trigger to flush a QB who escapes his efforts into our rotating Edges. Our hired coaching (Shane Waldron/Sanjay Lal on offense and Karl Scott/BT Jordan on defense) aims to mold the passing emphasis of all these areas. Passing is THE focus both offensively and defensively! Go Hawks

[Aseahawkfan]

So in other words, if Pete doesn't win another SB, it's John's fault. That's a big 'if', and makes the first part of your statement a moot point. It's what we used to call in racquetball a pre-registered excuse: "My back is killing me today!"

You're the one looking for fault, not me. I'm telling you how football works since it seems for a guy who has watched this game a long time, you don't seem to grasp it.

What's 100 percent true?

1. If you win one Super Bowl a decade, you're doing extraordinarily well.

2. If you make the playoffs even 30 to 40% of the time, you're doing better than most teams in the NFL.

3. Runs happen at finite points of time when things come together to make a run. They are not often continuous. You bring in a new coach, a new GM, and you hope they can bring another up period of ball where you're making the playoffs, finding your franchise QB, and making another run.

4. If you have a great franchise QB, you ride them until the wheels fall off the majority of the time.

5. Even the very best NFL franchises since the inception of the league have at most 6 Super Bowl rings since the creation of the Super Bowl 57 years ago. Those teams have been concentrated into particular periods whether Dallas winning 3 in the 90s, Pittsburgh 4 in the 70s, Frisco 5 in the 90s New England 6 during the 2000 sand 2010s, and so on. That means you don't compete for the Super Bowl too often unless you're in some special dynastic period with the perfect coach and GM set up with sufficient talent.

6. What seems to be the most consistent reason for Super Bowl and playoff success? Ownership. Ownerships philosophy on finding a good coach and GM to run the team, followed by talent acquisition, then outright luck if you pick some amazing QB who plays above expectations. That is a rare mix, but it starts with strong ownership committed to a winning tradition who understands the game of football, has patience to let a good coach and GM they believe in do the job, and then wait.

Fans who have unrealistic expectations after watching this game as long as you have are a strange lot to me. The expectation at best if you are an extremely well run franchise is one Super Bowl every ten years, few teams do even that.

Standards should be in line with historical production of the better run franchises.

7. I don't know that our current ownership is still as good as Paul Allen and thus am not confident at all they would replace Pete Carroll with a coach that would not put us in the purgatory of teams like Cleveland and Detroit. If Paul Allen still owned the team, I'm fairly certain Pete might have already been gone as Allen tends to know when a head coach is done or at least when he wants a change. But Jodi Allen? I don't know her at all or her plans or her interest level in managing a sports team.

All I know is if we don't have a clearly better option with an owner motivated to improve the team situation and knowledge of a head coach they have in mind, I'd rather stick with Pete and John and see if this Russ trade has renewed their focus and commitment to winning the big game.

[RiverDog]

All I know is if we don't have a clearly better option with an owner motivated to improve the team situation and knowledge of a head coach they have in mind, I'd rather stick with Pete and John and see if this Russ trade has renewed their focus and commitment to winning the big game.

Teams dismiss head coaches without a "clearly better option" all the time. Denver, Carolina, and Indianapolis all fired their coaches during the season and didn't start interviewing for weeks if not months.

Besides, even if they had someone in mind, there's no way of knowing if they would be able to lure them here until weeks, if not months, after they've let go of their current HC. Teams aren't permitted to contact NFL coaches, and most college coaches, such as Hairball did when rumors were swirling around about his possible return to the NFL, won't discuss potential job openings during the season. When Paul Allen fired Dennis Erickson, he didn't know that he'd be able to hire Mike Holmgren away from the Packers. I'm telling you how football works since it seems for a guy who has watched this game a long time, you don't seem to grasp it.

Unless Pete agrees to a timeline for his departure and the team has a heir apparent on the current staff, there's no way of finding a "clearly better option" prior to the opening.

[NorthHawk]

Pete’s going to be 72 this year so when he decides to retire or is invited to leave is a short time away relative to most other HCs in the NFL.
It will be a sad day when that change is made but I don’t fear the change and in some way think it’s close to time.
I would also expect a new owner to want to install their own regime, as most do when acquiring a team when it’s sold.

[RiverDog]

Pete’s going to be 72 this year so when he decides to retire or is invited to leave is a short time away relative to most other HCs in the NFL.
It will be a sad day when that change is made but I don’t fear the change and in some way think it’s close to time.
I would also expect a new owner to want to install their own regime, as most do when acquiring a team when it’s sold.

For me, it would be a bittersweet emotion when Pete retires, and yes, I think it is very close to being time, perhaps even a year or two past time. Like you, I don't fear the unknown and, in many ways, will be looking forward to the next generation of great Seahawk football.

I read an article the other day where it could be as long as 20 years before Jody has to sell the team, so she's likely going to be here when Pete retires, and if/when he does, my guess is that John Schneider will have a major hand in procuring his replacement.

[NorthHawk]

I had heard that 20 year figure a while back when Jody was talking about the teams future and it was in reference to large estates taking so long to being sold and the determining of worth of everything. I would think an NFL team would have a relatively simple determination of market value, but the decision to let go might be difficult. It does bring in a lot of money after all and that might be a part of continually feeding Paul's charitable works thus lessening the pressure to sell quickly.
On the other hand, it's a big ticket item off the table in that process.

[RiverDog]

I had heard that 20 year figure a while back when Jody was talking about the teams future and it was in reference to large estates taking so long to being sold and the determining of worth of everything. I would think an NFL team would have a relatively simple determination of market value, but the decision to let go might be difficult. It does bring in a lot of money after all and that might be a part of continually feeding Paul's charitable works thus lessening the pressure to sell quickly.
On the other hand, it's a big ticket item off the table in that process.

The question I have about delaying the sale so long is how will the governments react? Both the IRS and the State of Washington have an estate tax on large estates such as Allen's, and at some point, they're going to want to collect on it. They can't keep delaying payment by postponing the mandated sale as a way to duck the taxes. To this common layman, 10 years seems an excessive amount of time and 20 years is outrageous by anyone's definition.

FYI it will be 5 years this fall since Paul Allen passed away. To me, that would seem to be a reasonable amount of time to settle the conditions set forth in the trust.

[NorthHawk]

Wow. It's been 5 years. That went by fast.
Perhaps as the assets are to be distributed amongst charitable organizations to a large degree, the tax implications aren't as bad as we might think. My guess is his accountants/financial planners have put everything in a position to pay as little as possible to the Gov't and maximize contributions to his favorite projects and areas of interest.
Maybe in the end, selling the team should go last as that money can pay any outstanding taxes and probably still have a lot left to distribute. Again, though, I don't understand the tax system in Washington State.

[RiverDog]

Wow. It's been 5 years. That went by fast.
Perhaps as the assets are to be distributed amongst charitable organizations to a large degree, the tax implications aren't as bad as we might think. My guess is his accountants/financial planners have put everything in a position to pay as little as possible to the Gov't and maximize contributions to his favorite projects and areas of interest.
Maybe in the end, selling the team should go last as that money can pay any outstanding taxes and probably still have a lot left to distribute. Again, though, I don't understand the tax system in Washington State.

Yeah, time flies, doesn't it? I was in London for the Hawks-Raiders game when he died.

Keep in mind that it's more than just the State of Washington that has a vested interest in Allen's estate. The federal government also has an estate tax.

I'm no tax accountant, but my gut tells me that assets like the worth of the Hawks and Blazers would be pretty difficult to manipulate. It's pretty easy to tell what their fair market value is based on the most recent sale of a similar franchise. In the case of the Hawks, it would have to be close to the $6B that the Commanders just sold for. The State of Washington takes up to 20%, one of if not the largest estate tax in the country. The federal government can take up to 40%.

That's one helluva lot of money. Washington State's general revenue fund is about $60B per year, so $1.2B in tax revenue from the sale of just the Seahawks would represent around 2% of the entire fund. And that's before you toss in the roughly $2B that the Blazers would sell for, which I assume that Washington would collect on, too, as the estate is registered in Washington.

Then double that tax bill for Uncle Sam's 40% cut and it's pretty easy to see why the government might want to push this thing a long a little faster than they're talking about.

[NorthHawk]

Is it an 'Estate Tax' when the proceeds go to non profits and charitable organizations? Or is that money collected before the disbursements?
I have no idea how it works but usually monies going to non profits and charities isn't taxable - or at least at a much smaller rate.

[Aseahawkfan]

Teams dismiss head coaches without a "clearly better option" all the time. Denver, Carolina, and Indianapolis all fired their coaches during the season and didn't start interviewing for weeks if not months.

Besides, even if they had someone in mind, there's no way of knowing if they would be able to lure them here until weeks, if not months, after they've let go of their current HC. Teams aren't permitted to contact NFL coaches, and most college coaches, such as Hairball did when rumors were swirling around about his possible return to the NFL, won't discuss potential job openings during the season. When Paul Allen fired Dennis Erickson, he didn't know that he'd be able to hire Mike Holmgren away from the Packers. I'm telling you how football works since it seems for a guy who has watched this game a long time, you don't seem to grasp it.

Unless Pete agrees to a timeline for his departure and the team has a heir apparent on the current staff, there's no way of finding a "clearly better option" prior to the opening.

Denver had a clearly better option. They were going for Payton before they fired Hackett.

Carolina and Indy are not what I count as high quality franchises. Paul Allen always had a good idea of who he was going after and if he could get them before he pulled the trigger.

[RiverDog]

Is it an 'Estate Tax' when the proceeds go to non profits and charitable organizations? Or is that money collected before the disbursements?
I have no idea how it works but usually monies going to non profits and charities isn't taxable - or at least at a much smaller rate.

There is a federal tax deduction for charitable contributions from personal income, like if part of the estate went directly to Jody and she, in turn, made a charitable donation, but I'm not sure about the estate itself. I'm also not sure about what the state of Washington's estate tax rules are, if they exempt a portion of it if it's donated to charity. The State of Washington is one of the few states that does not have a personal income tax.

But the point is that there's enough tax money out there that the state and feds would have a keen interest in seeing the assets sold in a relatively prompt manner.

[RiverDog]

Denver had a clearly better option. They were going for Payton before they fired Hackett.

Carolina and Indy are not what I count as high quality franchises. Paul Allen always had a good idea of who he was going after and if he could get them before he pulled the trigger.

You're grasping at straws, my friend. Denver had no idea if they were going to be able to get Payton before they fired Hackett. The Broncos had to negotiate with the Saints, who still held the rights to him, and the Donkeys didn't know if they would be able to meet their demands or if some other team, like the Cowboys, who had been rumored for years being interested in Payton, would out-bid them. Payton himself said that he didn't want to go to a cold weather city, and it doesn't get much colder than Denver. He wasn't even named the Broncos coach until Feb. 3rd, well over 2 months after the Broncos had fired Hackett. Do you honestly think they would have waited that long before hiring him if they had a good line on him prior to the firing of Hackett?

Holmgren's Packers team qualified for the playoffs the same year that the Hawks lost on the Vinnie Testaverde helmet TD, of which Allen fired Erickson the next day. The Packers subsequently went one and done in the playoffs, but had they gone to the SB and won it, it's questionable that Holmgren would have left for the Hawks job. In any case, there's no way that Paul Allen could have known that he had a good chance of landing Holmgren. League rules prohibit teams from contacting other team's coaches about vacancies or potential vacancies during the season. I suppose it's possibe that there were some back-channel communications, but if there were, it would have been out of character for Paul Allen, who was never the type to do things underhanded or unethical.

[Aseahawkfan]

You're grasping at straws, my friend. Denver had no idea if they were going to be able to get Payton before they fired Hackett. The Broncos had to negotiate with the Saints, who still held the rights to him, and the Donkeys didn't know if they would be able to meet their demands or if some other team, like the Cowboys, who had been rumored for years being interested in Payton, would out-bid them. Payton himself said that he didn't want to go to a cold weather city, and it doesn't get much colder than Denver. He wasn't even named the Broncos coach until Feb. 3rd, well over 2 months after the Broncos had fired Hackett. Do you honestly think they would have waited that long before hiring him if they had a good line on him prior to the firing of Hackett?

Holmgren's Packers team qualified for the playoffs the same year that the Hawks lost on the Vinnie Testaverde helmet TD, of which Allen fired Erickson the next day. The Packers subsequently went one and done in the playoffs, but had they gone to the SB and won it, it's questionable that Holmgren would have left for the Hawks job. In any case, there's no way that Paul Allen could have known that he had a good chance of landing Holmgren. League rules prohibit teams from contacting other team's coaches about vacancies or potential vacancies during the season. I suppose it's possibe that there were some back-channel communications, but if there were, it would have been out of character for Paul Allen, who was never the type to do things underhanded or unethical.

They clearly had an idea Payton would be available prior to firing Hackett. They were likely pursuing him or at least getting a feel before firing Payton. After Hackett was gone, they went into more full court press. I think they clearly knew they would get Sean Payton or had a high percent change. I think you need the news to be reported before you think something is happening. I think they had already contacted Payton, already inquired, and the move was ready to be made as soon as they secured a deal that would work for the parties involved. They obviously had to see what it would cost them to make the deal with New Orleans, but they were moving before the end of the season.

League rules are laughable as you've seen again and again and again. People like Paul Allen and other owners have plenty of ways of acquiring information to ensure they have moves ready.

You have a strange belief that people follow the "rules" that have nothing to do with ethics or right or wrong. They are made up parameters skirted all the time everywhere if not outright manipulated by people with the power to do so. For some reason you believe if it isn't reported, it didn't happen or isn't true. I have no such thoughts. I have read on, watched, and seen wealthy people operate for years. They make sure they know what's going to happen far before the news reports it. They have already inquired through various sources they constantly employ, have already positioned to move, and thought through their moves far in advance of making the move to secure their investments and business deals.

Back-channel communication as you call it isn't unethical or underhanded. It's smart business to men like Paul Allen. Done all the time. Rarely gets caught and is rarely punished with any severity if caught. I think Allen quite clearly had a good feel he could acquire Holmgren and knew what he wanted.

[RiverDog]

You're grasping at straws, my friend. Denver had no idea if they were going to be able to get Payton before they fired Hackett. The Broncos had to negotiate with the Saints, who still held the rights to him, and the Donkeys didn't know if they would be able to meet their demands or if some other team, like the Cowboys, who had been rumored for years being interested in Payton, would out-bid them. Payton himself said that he didn't want to go to a cold weather city, and it doesn't get much colder than Denver. He wasn't even named the Broncos coach until Feb. 3rd, well over 2 months after the Broncos had fired Hackett. Do you honestly think they would have waited that long before hiring him if they had a good line on him prior to the firing of Hackett?

Holmgren's Packers team qualified for the playoffs the same year that the Hawks lost on the Vinnie Testaverde helmet TD, of which Allen fired Erickson the next day. The Packers subsequently went one and done in the playoffs, but had they gone to the SB and won it, it's questionable that Holmgren would have left for the Hawks job. In any case, there's no way that Paul Allen could have known that he had a good chance of landing Holmgren. League rules prohibit teams from contacting other team's coaches about vacancies or potential vacancies during the season. I suppose it's possibe that there were some back-channel communications, but if there were, it would have been out of character for Paul Allen, who was never the type to do things underhanded or unethical.

They clearly had an idea Payton would be available prior to firing Hackett. They were likely pursuing him or at least getting a feel before firing Payton. After Hackett was gone, they went into more full court press. I think they clearly knew they would get Sean Payton or had a high percent change. I think you need the news to be reported before you think something is happening. I think they had already contacted Payton, already inquired, and the move was ready to be made as soon as they secured a deal that would work for the parties involved. They obviously had to see what it would cost them to make the deal with New Orleans, but they were moving before the end of the season.

League rules are laughable as you've seen again and again and again. People like Paul Allen and other owners have plenty of ways of acquiring information to ensure they have moves ready.

You have a strange belief that people follow the "rules" that have nothing to do with ethics or right or wrong. They are made up parameters skirted all the time everywhere if not outright manipulated by people with the power to do so. For some reason you believe if it isn't reported, it didn't happen or isn't true. I have no such thoughts. I have read on, watched, and seen wealthy people operate for years. They make sure they know what's going to happen far before the news reports it. They have already inquired through various sources they constantly employ, have already positioned to move, and thought through their moves far in advance of making the move to secure their investments and business deals.

Back-channel communication as you call it isn't unethical or underhanded. It's smart business to men like Paul Allen. Done all the time. Rarely gets caught and is rarely punished with any severity if caught. I think Allen quite clearly had a good feel he could acquire Holmgren and knew what he wanted.

There is no way you're going to get me to buy your completely unfounded conspiracy theory that the Broncos believed that they had any more than a 50/50 chance of landing Sean Payton. Sure, there could have been some talks between the two parties, but there was a third party that also had to agree to the deal, that being the New Orleans Saints. The deal ultimately included a 2023 first round pick, a pick originally belonging to the Niners who weren't eliminated until the NFCCG, and they let Hackett go a month before then. The Broncos didn't even know what they would have to offer the Saints, let alone if it would be acceptable or what other teams like the Cowboys and Chargers might offer. There were too many irons in the fire for them to know how good of a chance they had at getting Payton.

Back-channel communication between teams' employees before the end of the regular season, while it may be a smart business practice, is against the NFL's rules. Paul Allen was no Al Davis. Name one rule or ethical standard that he violated in any situation, football or otherwise. It wasn't his style to be a renegade. Besides, Allen was less than two years into his ownership at the time he hired Holmgren. He wasn't about to rock the boat by breaking the rules.

As I said before, with the exception of teams having a heir apparent on their staff, nearly all NFL teams that fire their head coach do not have a plan for their replacement. They essentially do a talent search and start interviewing candidates after the firing, in some cases months after the firing.

[tarlhawk]

Getting back to the actual post...many "worries' focus on our D-line and an inability to stop the rush. These concerns would have greater impact if our team was "switching" to a true 3-4 defense and less of a Bear 4 man under front. We have the personnel to mix in the blend of 3-4/4-3 under fronts that are closer to being a hybrid of either type of Base personnel based on down and distance. Re-signing Bobby Wagner was not cosmetic to regain inspiring leadership...but because Bobby is still a killing force in run defense...his drop in athleticism exposes him in underneath coverage but our improvement in "sticky" coverage from our secondary helps off set that risk. Our defensive pass rush doesn't need an individual "monster" to make an opposing QB's life miserable. We added a Pass Rush "specialist" coach (BT Jordan) to create a Team of increased Pass Rush Win Rate which also gets boosted with "coverage" sacks whenever our secondary shifts into more sticky "man coverage" .

The best defense against the rush is an offense able to find rhythm in longer sustained chain moving drives with an ability to "quick strike" with Geno (#1 NFL Deep Pass QB last year whether (DK/Lockett/Fant) or Walker III with the burst/elusiveness threat to "take it home" from any spot on the field. The Offense can be the "best friend" of a defense wary of an opponents run game. Go Hawks

[tarlhawk]

I think 2022 was the emergence of Shane Waldron in his 2nd season as our offensive play caller ...putting our offense back on track. This will be Clint Hurtt's 2nd season calling the shots on Defense (also in transition) and perhaps our 2023 defense can mirror the rise of its offensive team mates. Go Hawks

[NorthHawk]

As long as Pete allows Waldron to let this Offense evolve then he will be on the right track. But that's not a certainty as he's pulled in the reins before at the first sign of trouble instead of letting the Offense work its way out of the problems.

[tarlhawk]

As long as Pete allows Waldron to let this Offense evolve then he will be on the right track. But that's not a certainty as he's pulled in the reins before at the first sign of trouble instead of letting the Offense work its way out of the problems.

Pete patiently waits for a full season to "pull in the reins...at first sign of trouble" ??? Your "car" seems stuck in "reverse" with worries of Pete...messing things up. Pete recognizes the value of balancing a strong passing attack with a rushing attack to keep an offenses rhythm humming and limit the impact from an opponents offense and controlling field advantage when calling in the defense to protect our end zone. Pass heavy offenses are at risk of being 3 and out frequently which often turns over the field to the defense...closer to our red zone...bad formula. Less stress and better (longer) rest for your defense usually produces better results...not complicated. Nothing stalls an offenses rhythm quicker than incomplete passes or an untimely holding call...we don't need to be run dominant...just run balanced.

[NorthHawk]

Pete pulled in the reins after a bad game when the Defense was almost nonexistent and the Offense had won the first 5 games all by itself. They were opening up that Offense to be more like we saw last year, but after a loss, Pete stood in front of the mic and said this was a style of football that he didn’t understand. Most people would have thought he was talking about the abhorrent Defense, but he was talking about the Offense and back we went to the old Peteball Offense for the rest of the year.
So the precedent has been set, and it remains to be seen if he does the same when this Offense hits a rough patch.

[tarlhawk]

Pete pulled in the reins after a bad game when the Defense was almost nonexistent and the Offense had won the first 5 games all by itself. They were opening up that Offense to be more like we saw last year, but after a loss, Pete stood in front of the mic and said this was a style of football that he didn’t understand. Most people would have thought he was talking about the abhorrent Defense, but he was talking about the Offense and back we went to the old Peteball Offense for the rest of the year.
So the precedent has been set, and it remains to be seen if he does the same when this Offense hits a rough patch.

What year are you referring to...and how does any NFL offense win any games "all by itself"?? You like to use "Peteball" as some kind of slander but just who are you appealing to? Its a good thing you KNOW what Pete was talking about in front of a mic...you have incredible powers of deduction...(sorry that sounds like I'm making it personal and not just a counter opinion...sometimes you come across like a trolling "RAMBO" type guy...I probably should just avoid the temptation of your "baiting". I apologize to the rest of the posters as well.

[NorthHawk]

The Defense was on pace to be the worst in NFL history. It was pretty much non existent and the Offense had to pull out all of the stops to win games.
We won the first 5 then lost a couple then Pete pulled the plug on the Offense. It's said to be the final point for Wilson here in Seattle and things went downhill from there.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

It wasn't just the first bad loss after the 5 game win streak that gave Pete reason. Wilson threw 3 picks in an OT loss to the Cardinals. Two weeks later, 2 more picks and 2 fumbles recovered by the defense against Buffalo, then a 0 td 2 int outing against the Rams the next week. Pete's never going to allow the passing game to make that many mistakes.

After Pete pulls the plug, Seattle wins 6 of their last 7 for a 12-4 record with Russel only throwing 3 more picks over that stretch. That 12-4 team them falls flat on its face hosting the Rams for the WC with a 11 of 27 for 174 yards 2 tds 1 int (pick six) stat line for Wilson.

I don't think Wilson's cooking was going to continue on the upward trajectory; those 3 of 4 losses lend some credence to that.

[RiverDog]

Pete pulled in the reins after a bad game when the Defense was almost nonexistent and the Offense had won the first 5 games all by itself. They were opening up that Offense to be more like we saw last year, but after a loss, Pete stood in front of the mic and said this was a style of football that he didn’t understand. Most people would have thought he was talking about the abhorrent Defense, but he was talking about the Offense and back we went to the old Peteball Offense for the rest of the year.
So the precedent has been set, and it remains to be seen if he does the same when this Offense hits a rough patch.

What year are you referring to...and how does any NFL offense win any games "all by itself"?? You like to use "Peteball" as some kind of slander but just who are you appealing to? Its a good thing you KNOW what Pete was talking about in front of a mic...you have incredible powers of deduction...(sorry that sounds like I'm making it personal and not just a counter opinion...sometimes you come across like a trolling "RAMBO" type guy...I probably should just avoid the temptation of your "baiting". I apologize to the rest of the posters as well.

I realize that you addressed this to North Hawk, but I have to add my two cents worth.

The year he was referring to was 2020. We started out the season 5-0, winning games by scores of 38-25, 35-30, 38-31, 31-23, and 27-26. Russell Wilson was lighting up the scoreboard and was being talked about as an early MVP candidate. Although no NFL offense wins games "all by itself", it's a figure of speech that is quite accurate in its intended effect. We were winning games in spite of our defense.

At one point in that season, perhaps after we lost 44-34 to the Bills in Week 9, our defense was on pace to be the worst in the history of the league. Our defense rebounded quite nicely in the 2nd half of the season and eventually were ranked 22nd in total yards, 15th in points allowed, which was remarkable considering how poorly we played in the first half of the season.

That was also the season where we got embarrassed at home in the playoffs vs. the Rams after having beaten them decisively two weeks earlier and had won the division with a 12-4 record.

[RiverDog]

I don't think Wilson's cooking was going to continue on the upward trajectory; those 3 of 4 losses lend some credence to that.

Yep, I remember that debate. One of the factors that allowed Russell to succeed so well in the first half of the season is that our schedule was loaded with some very weak defenses, especially in those first 5 games.

[tarlhawk]

I realize that you addressed this to North Hawk, but I have to add my two cents worth.

The year he was referring to was 2020. We started out the season 5-0, winning games by scores of 38-25, 35-30, 38-31, 31-23, and 27-26. We were winning games in spite of our defense.

Our defense rebounded quite nicely in the 2nd half of the season and eventually were ranked 22nd in total yards, 15th in points allowed, which was remarkable considering how poorly we played in the first half of the season.

That was also the season where we got embarrassed at home in the playoffs vs. the Rams after having beaten them decisively two weeks earlier and had won the division with a 12-4 record.

Well said. Our early season in 2020 really was awful...especially those first 5 games needing RW at his very best to overcome. Shaq Griffin and Clint Dunbar struggled out of the gate and in the Falcon game Matt Ryan took advantage with Julio Jones and Calvin Ridley exploding for over 500 yds of offense. Our defense almost made giving up those 400-500 yds an unsustainable average following the Falcon opener. In New England Cam Newton and Julian Edelman kept exposing our bad defense this time picking on KJ Wright and Jamal Adams to add to the blame. Our 3rd game into Dallas saw Dak Prescott punish Shaq Griffen/KJ Wright some more while thrashing a Tre Flowers subbing in for Dunbar. Miami with Devante Parker going off...next ganged up on Tre Flowers especially with more bad coverage from KJ. By the time we got to the Vikings for game 5 our run defense suffered 200 yds put on them by Dalvin Cook and later his replacement Alexander Mattison (who thrived in the 4th qtr)

Our defensive nightmare took its toll on players released/allowed to leave...Shaq and KJ who "survived" during the defensive slow turnaround that kept us out of the bad "records book" left after the year and Tre Flowers brought his "College Safety to NFL Cornerback experiment" to a halt early being replaced by DJ Reed (who changed the way for what Pete looks for as a cornerback template).

The defensive miseries exposed when RW began a brief struggle after a 3 pick game loss to the Cards (which gave DK his electric close the distance burst that caught up to Bubba baker *DK traveled 114.8 yds at a top speed of 22.64 MPH to catch Baker whose top speed was 21.27 according to NFL’s Next Gen Stats.) This bad defense began the "push to the door" for Def Coordinator Ken Norton Jr. a year later.

[RiverDog]

I realize that you addressed this to North Hawk, but I have to add my two cents worth.

The year he was referring to was 2020. We started out the season 5-0, winning games by scores of 38-25, 35-30, 38-31, 31-23, and 27-26. We were winning games in spite of our defense.

Our defense rebounded quite nicely in the 2nd half of the season and eventually were ranked 22nd in total yards, 15th in points allowed, which was remarkable considering how poorly we played in the first half of the season.

That was also the season where we got embarrassed at home in the playoffs vs. the Rams after having beaten them decisively two weeks earlier and had won the division with a 12-4 record.

Well said. Our early season in 2020 really was awful...especially those first 5 games needing RW at his very best to overcome. Shaq Griffin and Clint Dunbar struggled out of the gate and in the Falcon game Matt Ryan took advantage with Julio Jones and Calvin Ridley exploding for over 500 yds of offense. Our defense almost made giving up those 400-500 yds an unsustainable average following the Falcon opener. In New England Cam Newton and Julian Edelman kept exposing our bad defense this time picking on KJ Wright and Jamal Adams to add to the blame. Our 3rd game into Dallas saw Dak Prescott punish Shaq Griffen/KJ Wright some more while thrashing a Tre Flowers subbing in for Dunbar. Miami with Devante Parker going off...next ganged up on Tre Flowers especially with more bad coverage from KJ. By the time we got to the Vikings for game 5 our run defense suffered 200 yds put on them by Dalvin Cook and later his replacement Alexander Mattison (who thrived in the 4th qtr)

Our defensive nightmare took its toll on players released/allowed to leave...Shaq and KJ who "survived" during the defensive slow turnaround that kept us out of the bad "records book" left after the year and Tre Flowers brought his "College Safety to NFL Cornerback experiment" to a halt early being replaced by DJ Reed (who changed the way for what Pete looks for as a cornerback template).

The defensive miseries exposed when RW began a brief struggle after a 3 pick game loss to the Cards (which gave DK his electric close the distance burst that caught up to Bubba baker *DK traveled 114.8 yds at a top speed of 22.64 MPH to catch Baker whose top speed was 21.27 according to NFL’s Next Gen Stats.) This bad defense began the "push to the door" for Def Coordinator Ken Norton Jr. a year later.

The reason I replied was to validate what North Hawk said about our defense being on pace to be the worst in the history of the league as you had queried him about it. To my recollection, the comment was made by a color commentator during a broadcast at some point in the 2020 season.

Good editorial about our 2020 defense. And yea, I remember Metcalf chasing down Budda Baker. BTW, I have a funny story to tell about my meeting Budda Baker's uncle in a bar prior to a Hawks-Cards game. Heck of a nice guy.

2020 was the same year the Jamal Adams had so many sacks, and it was due in part because we were getting absolutely no pressure out of our front 7, so out of necessity, we had to send Adams in on blitzes.

[tarlhawk]

Jamal Adams out of necessity as you put it was used to give some spark to our anemic pass rush which suffered early with our secondary providing leaky not sticky coverage...little opportunity for "coverage sacks" as a result. Good sticky man coverage can add 1 to 2 sec of QB hesitation...allowing our pass rush to at least threaten a QB to "move off his spot". 2020 also saw an attempt to sign Bruce Irvin to inject some pass rush energy but he suffered a serious injury before causing any impact in 2020.