Aseahawkfan wrote:Only way PC is done is if he quits. Though I'll be unhappy if he doesn't make some wholesale changes to the offense. He needs to get the O-line and offense back on track or the clock starts ticking.
NorthHawk wrote:Regarding the protests? Not an issue, you just have to look around the league and you will find all teams are doing things to some degree. The Eagles are a lot more activist than the Seahawks and it isn't an issue there, but they
have a good Offense and a good Defense and have until recently had good luck with injuries. At least good enough to be able to cover for them. We'll see how they do without Wentz and Peters as the playoffs begin.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Only way PC is done is if he quits. Though I'll be unhappy if he doesn't make some wholesale changes to the offense. He needs to get the O-line and offense back on track or the clock starts ticking.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Only way PC is done is if he quits. Though I'll be unhappy if he doesn't make some wholesale changes to the offense. He needs to get the O-line and offense back on track or the clock starts ticking.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm one of Pete's biggest fans. I'd love to see him stay here to 70 plus. But I feel he needs to get back to his "Always Compete" philosophy. He seems to have lost himself in recent years and become too attached to his players and coaches. If he's lost his edge, then he doesn't belong as head coach of a team. There's no way Pete's philosophy should be able to look at the results of Tom Cable's coaching and whatever effect he has on the draft and think he has met up the criteria of "Always Compete." When Pete first got here, he was energized and churning the team until he found quality. Now he seems content and focused more on surrounding himself with supporters than following the philosophy that turned him into one of the best college coaches and one of the best NFL coaches. I hope Pete looks in the mirror and that "Always Compete" guy looks back and says, you have to do get back to who you are if you want the team to get back to dominance.
RiverDog wrote:His "Always Compete" philosphy might have worked well for rebuilding a team in which every position was up for grabs. But it doesn't seem to work as well when you have 8-10 players that are firmly entrenched as starters, especially when you add the money element to the equation.
Aseahawkfan wrote:It doesn't work well when you stop practicing the philosophy and another team named the New England Patriots continues to practice your philosophy. You think Belichick would tolerate Bevell or Cable this long? I doubt it.
RiverDog wrote:I doubt it, too.
But Belichek is a true anomaly as no other coach in this century has had anywhere near the success he's had. It's not fair to compare Pete or any other coach to him. If we are to be fair, we need to compare Pete to other post 2000 coaches, like Mike McCarthy and Mike Tomlin, both former Lombardi winners that have been with their teams longer than Pete's been with his, and see what kind of changes they made when their teams started to fall on hard times.
Aseahawkfan wrote: But Pete's the only coach with a level of control similar to Belichick. McCarthy and Tomlin have GMs that are actually in charge of the team to a large degree.
NorthHawk wrote:I was under the impression that the GM's for the most part allow the HC's to decide on who are the position coaches and the GM is basically a confirmation or in some cases a rubber stamp.
There are some teams where the GM might dally in that area and I'm thinking someone like Jerry Jones, but it's because the HC is in a weak position.
One of the few times the GM might interfere is if he is thinking of replacing the HC and one of the position coaches is a possible candidate for HC.
NorthHawk wrote:I was under the impression that the GM's for the most part allow the HC's to decide on who are the position coaches and the GM is basically a confirmation or in some cases a rubber stamp.
There are some teams where the GM might dally in that area and I'm thinking someone like Jerry Jones, but it's because the HC is in a weak position.
One of the few times the GM might interfere is if he is thinking of replacing the HC and one of the position coaches is a possible candidate for HC.
RiverDog wrote:In 2011, Mike Tomlin, not the GM, fired OC Bruce Arians:
"We did contact the Steelers, and we asked them if they had a comment on this," she said. "And they said, 'Look, this is ancient history for us. [Coach] Mike [Tomlin] has already talked about this.' But [they] made it clear that this was Mike Tomlin's decision, to fire Bruce Arians."
And this isn't the Steelers throwing their head coach under the bus. That's the same story Tomlin has been telling since Arians was let go.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/steelers-say-mike-tomlin-made-decision-to-fire-still-upset-bruce-arians/
A few years ago, the Packers fired their DC and most of the defensive coaching staff with Mike McCarthy taking the podium to explain defend his decision:
"These are difficult decisions," McCarthy said in a statement. "I hold each of these men in high regard on a personal level, and I want to thank them for their service to the Green Bay Packers."
http://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=3811283
There's multiple other examples of the HC, if not unilaterally firing their coaches, at least taking responsibility for it as if they had.
It's the head coach, not the GM, that is responsible for their coaching staffs. Oh, sure, you might have a situation where a meddlesome owner like Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones, or the late Al Davis might be behind the curtain pulling levers and pushing buttons, but particularly notable coaches like Tomlin and McCarthy with Lombardi's in the trophy case aren't going to be dictated to by the GM when it comes to the coaching staff.
I don't doubt that there are times when a GM might venture an opinion and encourage the HC to take action, but the final decision rests with the HC.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't care what they say in public. Fact is the owner and/or GM can step in and make it very clear that there is a problem and it needs to be taken care of the head coach will be the one on the chopping block. Sure, the head coach will make the final decision, but he will know very clearly that this change is wanted and encouraged by the GM and/or owner. We've seen head coaches refuse to remove assistants and then they were gone very shortly after along with their assistants. HCs with total command tend to last a little longer with screw up head coaches than head coaches where the GM has the ability to fire them. Though we've also seen dumb GMs get rid of great coaches because the owner didn't realize where his bread was buttered like San Francisco with Harbaugh.
trents wrote:If Tom Brady had the Seattle O line for protection he wouldn't be so great.
idhawkman wrote:Maybe Tom Brady does have and has had those things but he still rises above it all. Quick passes. There's a reason Edelman is good.
idhawkman wrote:Maybe Tom Brady does have and has had those things but he still rises above it all. Quick passes. There's a reason Edelman is good.
trents wrote:
Have you actually watched Patriot's games? Brady has this nice passing pocket nearly every pass play. His O Line maintains contact with defensive rushers and pushes them out and behind Brady and then he just moves up a little in the pocket. When the pocket begins to break down it is usually is on one side or the other and then he just slides to the left or right to get a little more time and space to get the pass off.
NorthHawk wrote:Remember when Dante Scarneccia (sp) their OL coach retired?
Their OL went into the toilet.
The year he returned, they won a SB.
Coaching is a huge factor.
NorthHawk wrote:Remember when Dante Scarneccia (sp) their OL coach retired?
Their OL went into the toilet.
The year he returned, they won a SB.
Coaching is a huge factor.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests