Head Coach Power Rankings

[RiverDog]

Pete checked in at #7, Hairball at #3.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap20000 ... s_harrison

[NorthHawk]

It didn't look like they took into consideration that Pete replaced all but a handful of players, made the playoffs 3 out of 4 years, and won the Super Bowl after only 4 years.
As opposed to others on the list that took already very good teams and won or almost won. I think it's harder to build a team and win early than take a solid nucleus of players and organize them into winners.
Good coaches can do that, but they don't have to be great coaches.

Belichick, I can see because he always has tough teams, and Coughlin has won 2 Super Bowls, but the others, well it's just a fashion show for readers.

[HumanCockroach]

Fine, we'll see where Harbaugh ends up after a second or third Lombardi in seattle.....

[c_hawkbob]

Pete checked in at #7, Hairball at #3.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap20000 ... s_harrison

What a total load of crap. This is more worth Seahawks fan indignation than anything said by or about any players this year!

[RiverDog]

I don't disagree with #1 and #2. But IMO both Harbaughs are over rated at 3 and 4. Hell, by that guy's criteria, Andy Reid ought to be in the Top 5 for as many times as he's taken teams to the conference championship game not to mention the job he did at KC this season.

I'm not going to spit on Hairball. The guy is a virtual quarterback whisperer and you can't argue with his w/l record. But he doesn't have a Lombardi. He inherited a much more talented roster than Pete did. This guy knocked Pete down for his two 7-9 seasons without considering that the two seasons before his arrival yielded a total of 9 wins and that the franchise was a complete mess.

[kalibane]

Elliott Harrison wrote the column. This is to be expected. All he's done is thrown stones at the Seahawks all season. He also is a Cowboys fan who writes at least two columns a year about how underrated Romo is so well yeah.

I actually can deal with ranking Carroll behind Harbaugh (not my opinion but I get it) but Carroll outside of the top 5 is a joke. If all coaches were free agents people are pushing Coughlin, McCarthy and John Harbaugh out of the way to get to Carroll.

[HumanCockroach]

Honestly I don't get most of the coaches rated above Carroll on that list, but what eves , How many SB rings does Tom Coughlin have? and how many years has it taken to amass that amount? I mean LAST season there was quite a bit of chatter about him losing his job, and that isn't the first time that has been a pretty loud conversation on his part, John Harbough has A ring, and what 3 division titles in how many years? Jim has a SB appearance with a loss to his brother ( meaning ONE of them was walking away with the hardware) and 3 consecutive championship game appearances, does Reid deserve a higher ranking them him as well? the truth of the matter is, that what Carroll did in his first four years is damn impressive, especially since he completely dismantled and reassembled this team....

That all said, I've personally been one to trumpet his and Schneiders FO acumen, and I wonder sometimes if it's his coaching that matters the most, or his ability to find "his" unique players and plug them in. Ultimately I could care less which is more important, or where someone ranks him, as long as shiny trophies continue to show up in Seattle, I could care less what rank he garners in these stupid fluff pieces ( just like QB rankings that continue to place Luck, or Cam, or RGIII above the better performer in Wilson) they can call us cheaters, or pedestrians, or say this player or that player doesn't stack up, but as long as this team continues to win for a long extended stretch ( and I honestly don't see that changing, based on the age+talent level currently residing on the roster, along with the coaches preaching competition and work) I could care less what random media, clueless fans or anyone else thinks.....

[RiverDog]

Honestly I don't get most of the coaches rated above Carroll on that list, but what eves , How many SB rings does Tom Coughlin have? and how many years has it taken to amass that amount? I mean LAST season there was quite a bit of chatter about him losing his job, and that isn't the first time that has been a pretty loud conversation on his part, John Harbough has A ring, and what 3 division titles in how many years? Jim has a SB appearance with a loss to his brother ( meaning ONE of them was walking away with the hardware) and 3 consecutive championship game appearances, does Reid deserve a higher ranking them him as well? the truth of the matter is, that what Carroll did in his first four years is damn impressive, especially since he completely dismantled and reassembled this team....

What's stupid is him docking Carroll for his first two seasons, obviously rebuilding years. Sean Payton had consecutive 7-9 and 8-8 seasons and he didn't say anything about those lemons.

I think Kal's right. This guy does seem to have an agenda.

[Hawktawk]

The league pundits have a hard on for Seattle. Not sure why but its undeniable. Coming off a SB win and total domination of the *best* offense in history Seattle is somewhere from 7 to 9 at the most critical positions. They hate us folks. That explains a SB winner playing 4 out of 5 prime time games on the road. Imagine if it was the defending champs Dallas for instance. F them I hope the guys use it as motivation. They fing hate us.....

[NorthHawk]

The league pundits have a hard on for Seattle. Not sure why but its undeniable. Coming off a SB win and total domination of the *best* offense in history Seattle is somewhere from 7 to 9 at the most critical positions. They hate us folks. That explains a SB winner playing 4 out of 5 prime time games on the road. Imagine if it was the defending champs Dallas for instance. F them I hope the guys use it as motivation. They fing hate us.....

We're playing 4 out of 5 prime time games on the road because our home record suggests it will be over by half time.
It's more about ratings (and money) than anything else.

[Hawktawk]

Denver had the same type of point differential at home and they have a much more favorable home prime time schedule. Its BS, Were the champs and getting treated like another up and comer. 4 out of 5 on the road?Come on! Goody sat there in NY looking like he was passing a gallstone and he f ING hates the Seahawks. They did it in spite of him.

[HumanCockroach]

Funny thing that, pittsburgh, Baltimore, St Louis, New England etc have all had extended stretches of winning, followed by multiple prime time games at home when their winning percentage was on par with Seattles. Wonder what Denvers docket of prime time home games is next season, and last I checked they also have a pretty damn good record an HF advantage . But hey, whatever floats their boats I guess.

I will never understand not promoting the involvement of the fans in that stadium, but what do I know? I guess I base my opinions on what a Team, and it's fans should strive to emulate, as opposed to the opportunity to say "what an upset" at some point in the season......

( edit: 3 home games in prime time for Denver, 2 home prime time for Baltimore, multiple home prime time for New England etc) all have had similar success winning those games at home, guess it was how "badly" Seattle beats their teams, but anyway you slice it, it isn't right to give the SB champs just the season opener at home and nothing else. NO other SB winning team since MNF has had no prime time games at home that I remember, does anyone have any idea if there has been one before?

[Seahawks4Ever]

Just think what the excuses will be win our Hawks run the table this season and repeat with a 19-0 record. Oh, they will say that the Hawks feat doesn't measure up to the Dolphins 17-0 record in 1972 and yada, yada, yada.

They are already saying that our Hawks defense doesn't measure up to the '85 Bears or the 2000 Ravens defenses. Look at who those teams played, the Patriots and Giants who both had anemic offenses, our defense played a record setting offense and utterly destroyed them, yet for some reason our guys don't measure up... Sure, keep telling yourselves that media boys.

[RiverDog]

I don't really care about the lack of Prime Time appearances, and I doubt that the team considers it as much of a slight as some of us fans do. As far as my personal viewing habits go, I'd almost rather we not be in Prime Time. NBC can flex into games starting in Week 5 and if our resume is as strong as we think it is, we should end up with at least one of our home contests getting flexed.

I love your optimism, S4E, but I'm not holding my breath on 19-0. I'll be happy with a divisional championship and a first round bye.

[NorthHawk]

Denver had the same type of point differential at home and they have a much more favorable home prime time schedule. Its BS, Were the champs and getting treated like another up and comer. 4 out of 5 on the road?Come on! Goody sat there in NY looking like he was passing a gallstone and he f ING hates the Seahawks. They did it in spite of him.

Denver and the others have a much larger national fan base that would continue to watch, whereas we are still building a national following.
I think if we win another in the next couple of years, we will get to that level as well, but the perception is our following is smaller than others at this time.
That's mostly what determines the scheduling.

[HumanCockroach]

I think you might be surprised what the size of the Seahawks fanbase is North. Typically it's based on sales of merchandise, and the Seahawks generally do well in that regard, they may not be the Steelers, or Boys, but I would guess they still outsell Denver..... I know in the 80's and mid 2000's they were the most 'marketable' team a couple of those years. Denver isn't all that, nor is Baltimore in regards to fans and sales. there have been 'lags' in sales, but as a whole they have been supported well for a long time.

And I thought it wasn't about that anyway, it was about how competitive the games were? Seattle almost always got at least one or two prime time games even when they were bad, because of the fan support for this team, now they aren't good enough? something seems backwards with that.

[NorthHawk]

The perception is that we aren't a large fan base.
That will take a while to change.

The ratings have shown that when we get way ahead of teams, the viewership falls off quickly. With the other teams with large followings, that hasn't been the case - at least not as much.
We're a victim of our own success.
The question is what happens when we consistently pound teams in road games. Will they reduce the number of prime time games for us?

[kalibane]

I've explained this before what my opinion is on the matter. It has nothing to do with the size of the fanbase. Baltimore is the same size as Seattle, has a shorter history than the Seahawks and they have to compete with a far more popular team only 30 minutes down the road.

To put the Redskins in perspective. They have eroded a nice portion of their good will with the fans now but they still had a 35 year waiting list for season tickets during their darkest days when they had Richie Pettibone as a head coach and Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard and MIchael Westbrook were flopping their way into the top 5 of the draft every year. The Redskins rule that market locally (at least a 1/4 of the football fans in Baltimore are Redskin fans) and have a much bigger following nationally.

As far as I can see there is no bias regarding the prime time games. I don't even think the idea that Seahawk Home games were blow outs factored in. It's just the way the schedule broke down. Fox protected the 2nd SF game in Seattle. CBS protected the Denver game. The first Cardinals game is the week before Thanksgiving and NBC wasn't going to show the same team in back to back weeks. I think they would prefer to be at the Clink for Prime Time because it's such a great crowd and it gives them an immediate talking point. It just so happened that all the best matchups were road games... They other schedule in consideration was worse for the Seahawks. They might have gotten one more home prime time game but I think they had a 3 game road stretch where they would be zig zagging across the entire country. It was just bad.

It's easy to fall into the bias trap with this but I don't think that's the case here.

[Eaglehawk]

Pete checked in at #7, Hairball at #3.

http://www.nfl.com/photoessays/0ap20000 ... s_harrison

TOTALLY RIDICULOUS!

[NorthHawk]

I've explained this before what my opinion is on the matter. It has nothing to do with the size of the fanbase. Baltimore is the same size as Seattle, has a shorter history than the Seahawks and they have to compete with a far more popular team only 30 minutes down the road.

To put the Redskins in perspective. They have eroded a nice portion of their good will with the fans now but they still had a 35 year waiting list for season tickets during their darkest days when they had Richie Pettibone as a head coach and Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard and MIchael Westbrook were flopping their way into the top 5 of the draft every year. The Redskins rule that market locally (at least a 1/4 of the football fans in Baltimore are Redskin fans) and have a much bigger following nationally.

As far as I can see there is no bias regarding the prime time games. I don't even think the idea that Seahawk Home games were blow outs factored in. It's just the way the schedule broke down. Fox protected the 2nd SF game in Seattle. CBS protected the Denver game. The first Cardinals game is the week before Thanksgiving and NBC wasn't going to show the same team in back to back weeks. I think they would prefer to be at the Clink for Prime Time because it's such a great crowd and it gives them an immediate talking point. It just so happened that all the best matchups were road games... They other schedule in consideration was worse for the Seahawks. They might have gotten one more home prime time game but I think they had a 3 game road stretch where they would be zig zagging across the entire country. It was just bad.

It's easy to fall into the bias trap with this but I don't think that's the case here.

You might be right. I think money is a big factor, though.

[RiverDog]

I've explained this before what my opinion is on the matter. It has nothing to do with the size of the fanbase. Baltimore is the same size as Seattle, has a shorter history than the Seahawks and they have to compete with a far more popular team only 30 minutes down the road.

To put the Redskins in perspective. They have eroded a nice portion of their good will with the fans now but they still had a 35 year waiting list for season tickets during their darkest days when they had Richie Pettibone as a head coach and Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard and MIchael Westbrook were flopping their way into the top 5 of the draft every year. The Redskins rule that market locally (at least a 1/4 of the football fans in Baltimore are Redskin fans) and have a much bigger following nationally.

As far as I can see there is no bias regarding the prime time games. I don't even think the idea that Seahawk Home games were blow outs factored in. It's just the way the schedule broke down. Fox protected the 2nd SF game in Seattle. CBS protected the Denver game. The first Cardinals game is the week before Thanksgiving and NBC wasn't going to show the same team in back to back weeks. I think they would prefer to be at the Clink for Prime Time because it's such a great crowd and it gives them an immediate talking point. It just so happened that all the best matchups were road games... They other schedule in consideration was worse for the Seahawks. They might have gotten one more home prime time game but I think they had a 3 game road stretch where they would be zig zagging across the entire country. It was just bad.

It's easy to fall into the bias trap with this but I don't think that's the case here.

I agree. Whether it's for the reason Kal has stated or for some other monetary related reason, I do not believe there is a bias present within the league and the networks regarding how they schedule. They will schedule to maximize revenue. Period.

[HumanCockroach]

Personally, I'm absolutely shocked a few of those games weren't selected or scheduled into a prime time slot. Regardless, i don't remember a SB winning team, having the season opener and no other home prime time games. It wouldn't have been a huge stretch to select the Rams, or Cards at home as a primetime game, and wouldn't in all likely hood been"protected" games... The Boys happen to be at home as well, there were plenty of games at the Clink that could indeed have been selected, that would have been HUGE draws ( Denver, SC, Cowboys etc) and not all of them can be protected......

I'm not saying it's a bias, but if the reason was indeed the uncompetitiveness of those contests ( which supposedly an NFL insider said was the reasoning) than there certainly is something fishy. NO regularily dominates their primetime opponents at home, and yet year after year, they do indeed get them. 15 teams ( roughly half of the NFL has more home PT games) with an additional 8 having the same number ( 1) that's 23 of 31 teams with 7 teams having 0 and 1 team playing 1 on the road. Pretty sure the NFL could have worked something out if they had wanted to with that schedule, and chose not to.

[kalibane]

They could put the Cowboys and Giants on against the jags and they'd draw ratings. Why waste two big draws on one game. Like I said the Cards home game is right before Thanksgiving. No way NBC put the Hawks on 2 weeks in a row. And no way the put the Hawks on Monday Night and the play the Niners on 3 days rest.

[HumanCockroach]

They could put the Cowboys and Giants on against the jags and they'd draw ratings. Why waste two big draws on one game. Like I said the Cards home game is right before Thanksgiving. No way NBC put the Hawks on 2 weeks in a row. And no way the put the Hawks on Monday Night and the play the Niners on 3 days rest.

Why would they flinch at putting the reigning superbowl champs on back to back? Saints have back to back games this season, the Boys have back to back to back nationally televised games, and I believe the Broncs also have back to back games and that is just THIS season. Baltimore had back to back games a season or two ago, New England and Pittsburgh,GB do it with regularity, hell Seattle did it just last year ( Cards and Rams)..... I don't think there is much issue with back to back nationally televised games, it isn't uncommon.

[kalibane]

Back to back on the same network? That's the difference. If it wasn't a Thanksgiving game I could see MNF followed by SNF or vice versa. But not two on the same network back to back.

[Hawktown]

I've explained this before what my opinion is on the matter. It has nothing to do with the size of the fanbase. Baltimore is the same size as Seattle, has a shorter history than the Seahawks and they have to compete with a far more popular team only 30 minutes down the road.

To put the Redskins in perspective. They have eroded a nice portion of their good will with the fans now but they still had a 35 year waiting list for season tickets during their darkest days when they had Richie Pettibone as a head coach and Heath Shuler, Desmond Howard and MIchael Westbrook were flopping their way into the top 5 of the draft every year. The Redskins rule that market locally (at least a 1/4 of the football fans in Baltimore are Redskin fans) and have a much bigger following nationally.

As far as I can see there is no bias regarding the prime time games. I don't even think the idea that Seahawk Home games were blow outs factored in. It's just the way the schedule broke down. Fox protected the 2nd SF game in Seattle. CBS protected the Denver game. The first Cardinals game is the week before Thanksgiving and NBC wasn't going to show the same team in back to back weeks. I think they would prefer to be at the Clink for Prime Time because it's such a great crowd and it gives them an immediate talking point. It just so happened that all the best matchups were road games... They other schedule in consideration was worse for the Seahawks. They might have gotten one more home prime time game but I think they had a 3 game road stretch where they would be zig zagging across the entire country. It was just bad.

It's easy to fall into the bias trap with this but I don't think that's the case here.

I agree. Whether it's for the reason Kal has stated or for some other monetary related reason, I do not believe there is a bias present within the league and the networks regarding how they schedule. They will schedule to maximize revenue. Period.

Is That not a bias??? Cause it seems like one to me???

[Futureite]

Carroll should be top 5. Dinging him for 7-9 in 2010 is ridiculous. That may have been his best coaching job. I would not argue too hard if people felt he should rank above JH. Carroll has earned that respect.

But, the JH inherited talent argument is worn out. For so many years I considered our team a crap unit with 4 or 5 true players (J. Smith, Willis, Gore, Davis). So much crap surrounding them. Then you had guys like Goldson who was rumored to get cut and wasn't even a starter to begin 2011, projects like Ahmad Brooks and Boone, no pass rush, no corners and aweful QB play. A team with 8 straight losing seasons that great O minds like McCarthy and Turner could not fix was "loaded". And I believe our D ranked 22nd overall in 2010. Ironically, my biggest gripe pre JH was that we were a team with a couple studs and a collosal dropiff in talent at every other supporting position. Funny how good backups like Bowman and on again off again starters like Tarell Brown became with "the right coach".

[kalibane]

If you didn't see the talent there that just underscores the lack of observational skills. The niners were supposed to be the team to win the NFC West (fairly easily I might add) the year the Seahawks won it with a 7-9 record. And I'm the one guy who doesn't have a huge issue with Harbaugh (Jim) being ranked above Carroll.

[Futureite]

If you didn't see the talent there that just underscores the lack of observational skills. The niners were supposed to be the team to win the NFC West (fairly easily I might add) the year the Seahawks won it with a 7-9 record. And I'm the one guy who doesn't have a huge issue with Harbaugh (Jim) being ranked above Carroll.

Depends upon what you mean by "talent" and "there". When people spoke about 2010's talent before that season, they were referring to guys like Shantae Spencer, David Baas, Michael Lewis, Nate Clements, Michael Robinson, Aubreyo Franklin, Josh Morgan, Takeo Spikes, Manny Lawson on and on. Only one of those guys were retained in 2011, and he broke his ankle week 3 I believe.

Yes, now people know who Bowman, Brooks, Goldson, Ray Mcdonald, Delaney Walker and Boone are, but prior to 2011 not many people outside the bay area valued them very high. It's no diffetent than drafting Aldon #7, converting a 7th rd D-end to FB in Bruce Miller or making an UDFA in Rahim Brock a starting corner. Whether the guys were sitting on the practice squad, already on the chopping block or signed via the draft or FA, talent evaluation is the same both inside and outside of an organization. Pretty easy to say thesw guys were good after the fact, when a good portion of the league felt otherwise.

[kalibane]

The one non QB guy that I give Harbaugh credit for developing is Boone. Aside from that your best two receivers your entire offensive line and the entire core of your defense (minus Aldon Smith) was there before Harbaugh was and all of them were drafted in the third round or higher where you expect to get starters. The fact that they underachieved under Singletary or Nolan does not negate talent. Like I said if you couldn't see past the poor coaching and toxic locker room to see it that's a flaw in your evaluation ability.

[NorthHawk]

Singletary was the HC from 2008 - 2010. In that time they were expected to challenge for the division with Arizona or Seattle and there was a reason for that.
However, they never got close with him at the helm.
When JH was hired, suddenly they got real better real fast. Harbaugh is a good coach, but the base talent was there relative to the others in the division and he began to get the best out of his players.
That's something Singletary couldn't seem to do in his 3 years as HC.
In his defense, his OL and the team in general were still generally young and he helped potentially good players like Brooks and Davis become professionals.
Harbaugh was able to capitalize on what was there, get a better supporting coaching staff, and settle the Offense. Those aren't small things, but it wasn't in addition to replacing 48 or more players on the roster at the same time.

[HumanCockroach]

Carroll should be top 5. Dinging him for 7-9 in 2010 is ridiculous. That may have been his best coaching job. I would not argue too hard if people felt he should rank above JH. Carroll has earned that respect.

But, the JH inherited talent argument is worn out. For so many years I considered our team a crap unit with 4 or 5 true players (J. Smith, Willis, Gore, Davis). So much crap surrounding them. Then you had guys like Goldson who was rumored to get cut and wasn't even a starter to begin 2011, projects like Ahmad Brooks and Boone, no pass rush, no corners and aweful QB play. A team with 8 straight losing seasons that great O minds like McCarthy and Turner could not fix was "loaded". And I believe our D ranked 22nd overall in 2010. Ironically, my biggest gripe pre JH was that we were a team with a couple studs and a collosal dropiff in talent at every other supporting position. Funny how good backups like Bowman and on again off again starters like Tarell Brown became with "the right coach".

4 or 5 truly talented players ( even if you are inclined to dismis the many players on that team with talent that weren't starting) is a hell of a lot more than one still roaming the Seahawks roster ( Mebane) who has never appeared on a Pro Bowl, and is a "solid" performer. The Seahawks won a SB in year four of Carrolls reign, with TWO players on the team from the first year he arrived ( Bryant and Mebane) and Red was NOT a guy expected to make the team that first year, and wouldn't have without a position switch.

The fact remains those players were on the team, right? the talent WAS there whether they were using it or not.That is an indication of how bad Singletary was of talent, or that those players needed more seasoning, or that Singletary wasn't keen on young players, but however you slice it, the talent was ON the roster.

[savvyman]

Maybe on X's & O's and developing and implementing complex game play calling strategy Caroll is not in the top 5 or even top 10. Both the offense and defense schemes and play calling of the Seahawks might be the most basic in the entire NFL.

However when it comes to both developing players and creating an atmosphere of success throughout an organization (the most important duty of any leader) Pete has a clear claim to being ranked number 1 on that criteria & list.

[HumanCockroach]

Yeah I agree, I've said for two years now that the talent evaluation ability is off the charts, I'm not sure if the x and o's are all that incredible, but the fact that he was strong in his conviction to do less intricate stuff but at an insanely successful rate certainly deserves credit IMHO. The Hawks in general don't "trick" defenses or offenses, they are just more talented, and beat teams into submission, which is pretty damn impressive. I don't have a problem with him being ranked lower than many on that list, but seems like a lot of these fluff peices are "punishing" players or coaches because they are so insanely talented, which seems odd to me in this article because Carroll is a HUGE reason they are so.

[RiverDog]

4 or 5 truly talented players ( even if you are inclined to dismis the many players on that team with talent that weren't starting) is a hell of a lot more than one still roaming the Seahawks roster ( Mebane) who has never appeared on a Pro Bowl, and is a "solid" performer. The Seahawks won a SB in year four of Carrolls reign, with TWO players on the team from the first year he arrived ( Bryant and Mebane) and Red was NOT a guy expected to make the team that first year, and wouldn't have without a position switch.

The fact remains those players were on the team, right? the talent WAS there whether they were using it or not.That is an indication of how bad Singletary was of talent, or that those players needed more seasoning, or that Singletary wasn't keen on young players, but however you slice it, the talent was ON the roster.

Not that it diminishes your point, but you're forgetting about Unger.

[HumanCockroach]

4 or 5 truly talented players ( even if you are inclined to dismis the many players on that team with talent that weren't starting) is a hell of a lot more than one still roaming the Seahawks roster ( Mebane) who has never appeared on a Pro Bowl, and is a "solid" performer. The Seahawks won a SB in year four of Carrolls reign, with TWO players on the team from the first year he arrived ( Bryant and Mebane) and Red was NOT a guy expected to make the team that first year, and wouldn't have without a position switch.

The fact remains those players were on the team, right? the talent WAS there whether they were using it or not.That is an indication of how bad Singletary was of talent, or that those players needed more seasoning, or that Singletary wasn't keen on young players, but however you slice it, the talent was ON the roster.

Not that it diminishes your point, but you're forgetting about Unger.

I wasn't forgetting him, I was not including him per Futures parameters of not including non starters ( Unger was not a starting center before Carroll, he played guard, and he wasn't even a center Carrolls first season, he was again a guard, that went on IR in week 2). Red was a starter at his new position, as was Mebane.

[Futureite]

Carroll should be top 5. Dinging him for 7-9 in 2010 is ridiculous. That may have been his best coaching job. I would not argue too hard if people felt he should rank above JH. Carroll has earned that respect.

But, the JH inherited talent argument is worn out. For so many years I considered our team a crap unit with 4 or 5 true players (J. Smith, Willis, Gore, Davis). So much crap surrounding them. Then you had guys like Goldson who was rumored to get cut and wasn't even a starter to begin 2011, projects like Ahmad Brooks and Boone, no pass rush, no corners and aweful QB play. A team with 8 straight losing seasons that great O minds like McCarthy and Turner could not fix was "loaded". And I believe our D ranked 22nd overall in 2010. Ironically, my biggest gripe pre JH was that we were a team with a couple studs and a collosal dropiff in talent at every other supporting position. Funny how good backups like Bowman and on again off again starters like Tarell Brown became with "the right coach".

4 or 5 truly talented players ( even if you are inclined to dismis the many players on that team with talent that weren't starting) is a hell of a lot more than one still roaming the Seahawks roster ( Mebane) who has never appeared on a Pro Bowl, and is a "solid" performer. The Seahawks won a SB in year four of Carrolls reign, with TWO players on the team from the first year he arrived ( Bryant and Mebane) and Red was NOT a guy expected to make the team that first year, and wouldn't have without a position switch.

The fact remains those players were on the team, right? the talent WAS there whether they were using it or not.That is an indication of how bad Singletary was of talent, or that those players needed more seasoning, or that Singletary wasn't keen on young players, but however you slice it, the talent was ON the roster.

I am sure you read where I stated that Carroll should be top 5 and I would not argue much if someone rated him above JH. So why are yiu rephrasing my post to make it appear as though I stated something anti-Hawk?

I did argue against the notion that JH had bundles of talent to work with. I am not denying that he had some pieces, but what he had to work with is embelished. For example, STs play was a huge piece of our 13 win season. Players like Blake Costanzo and David Akers were not here in 2010. I've covered this point up and down in the past. You cannot win with 4 or 5 pieces, no supporting cast. It does not work that way for any team in the NFL.

Another point that I've made; Carroll/Schneider are a team just like Jh/Baalke are. You cannot credit one for talent aquisition/evaluation and not the other. For example, Baalke brought in A. Davis, Iupati, Bowman and Boone. The first two played shaky in their rookie yr, the latter two did not play at all. All 4 are credited under the JH/Baalke umbrella. Same holds true for Seattle. Schneider undoubtedly had a hand in finding and drafting a lot of these guys, Carroll in coaching them up. It is an easier narrative to give all the credit for building the team to either coach, but that's not what occured with either team.

[HumanCockroach]

Where Carroll ranks in this fluff piece is irrelevant to me. I am constantly lauding both Carroll and Schneiders work on the team, and wasn't in the least interested in showing your dig at the Hawks. I was simply pointing out that the talent wasn't close in regards to the pieces in place, and that whether Singletary refused to play some of that talent for whatever reason, it is irrelevant, the talent level in Santa Clara was light years ahead of where Seattle was at the time of the change. ( FYI plenty of teams "win" with only 4 or 5 Pro Bowl quality players)

[HumanCockroach]

Bump