We Look Everywhere ... Seahawks Staff

[Bird Droppings]

Well, through 227 picks in the draft, only six names have come up without an official NFL grade.

The Seahawks picked three of those...one in the fifth round, one in the sixth and one in the seventh.

"We look places where even the NFL doesn't look. And we're not counting jail or guys that didn't at least try to go to college. Ya just never know" ...

Mantra of the Seahawks staff?

zoom

[RiverDog]

Yea, we're definitely unconventional, that's for sure. Hard to argue with success, though.

[monkey]

Hard to argue with success, though.

Quote of the day.

I had no idea who our new DT was until I saw that he came from Middle Tenn., and then it came rushing back to me.
I actually watched that team play a game this year, their bowl game against Navy! (Navy fan here).

The reason I didn't immediately remember him, is probably because I was so distracted during that game by the fact that their coach was ACTIVELY encouraging them to cheat!
Not kidding, he was laughing it up on the sidelines, and high fiving players as they came off the field after plays where they were CLEARLY headhunting, at his direction.
MAN I was TICKED!!!
Going into that game I didn't know anything about that team, but now I actively dislike that team now, especially their loser linebacker who FINALLY got tossed after his third flag for intentionally trying to hurt a Navy player; and I loathe their coach, who is a bully, and a low class, loser, cheat.
Just saying.

At any rate, Navy kicked their butts badly, but I do remember that they had a somewhat difficult time running straight up the middle, which is usually the bread and butter for the triple option offense. The first option is to the fullback up the gut.
Thinking back I remember being very impressed with our new DT's agility, and his ability against the run. He seemed very athletic for someone his size....almost surprisingly so. I remember thinking that he was one of those guys who, in spite of their size, were surprisingly fast and agile. The kind of person you wouldn't expect to be that quick and athletic, just looking at them.

He seemed like the only player on that team who (to me anyway) had any realistic pro potential. (Guess Pete and John thought so too).

[Zorn76]

Fresh off a SB win, I notice the pundits on espn and NFLN are starting to give us the benefit of the doubt

On the surface, anyway, it seems like their judgement (compared to previous drafts) has tempered somewhat. I think RW really changed their line of thinking when it comes to the potential of any player now, not just QB's.

And they made of point of ending their remarks with "...but the Seahawks have a specific role in mind for this guy, even if conventional thinking is that there are other players on the board who might be better..."

That kind of stuff is what I notice now in relation to year's past.

I also think that the general public forgets how key coaches are. It's so simple, yet easy to overlook. The Patriots (and more recently, the Seahawks) have been making a living at taking raw talent (or even average talent) and coaching them up. Several things have to come together to get the fullest potential out of anybody, and I've always believed it has as much to do with the mental toughness or aptitude of a player as it does anything else. We've all seen the disasters, particularly for QB's, when their physical talents are negated by a warped mind.

At any rate, I'm looking forward to seeing how this class pans out. I also have confidence in the other FA's we're about to bring in. It should be a great 2014. Already is, really:)

[RiverDog]

I'm wondering how much of our late round success in the draft has to do with the fact that there are a lot of players that Pete either coached, coached against, or recruited when he was at USC. If there's any truth to that observation, then the question that follows is can we sustain that late round success the further away Pete gets from his college days?

[NorthHawk]

I'm wondering how much of our late round success in the draft has to do with the fact that there are a lot of players that Pete either coached, coached against, or recruited when he was at USC. If there's any truth to that observation, then the question that follows is can we sustain that late round success the further away Pete gets from his college days?

Pete's been in the NFL for 4 years now so his involvement with players at the College level is almost non existent now.
He does have a host of former coaches in college that he might be able to turn to for advice on players, but I think most of it is the scouts who identify the players, then the FO looks at who they suggest and maybe start asking questions if they are real interested.

[RiverDog]

I'm wondering how much of our late round success in the draft has to do with the fact that there are a lot of players that Pete either coached, coached against, or recruited when he was at USC. If there's any truth to that observation, then the question that follows is can we sustain that late round success the further away Pete gets from his college days?

Pete's been in the NFL for 4 years now so his involvement with players at the College level is almost non existent now.
He does have a host of former coaches in college that he might be able to turn to for advice on players, but I think most of it is the scouts who identify the players, then the FO looks at who they suggest and maybe start asking questions if they are real interested.

I do think that Pete's college experience was a factor with the players he brought in, guys like Richard Sherman, Brandon Browner, Marshawn Lynch, Mike Williams, Bruce Irvin, and as recently as Malcolm Smith, as well as our first pick this season, Paul Richardson, whom Pete recruited, and it may very well have been a factor with some of the players we didn't go after, like Taylor Mays and Matt Leinart.

If it was a factor in his success, then it's going to be a factor when we lose that advantage unless we can compensate in some other area.

[NorthHawk]

Possibly, but players change over the years. Some come in as QBs but end up as DE's so if he knew a kid at 19 and he's now 23 that player might be a totally different person with a completely different skill set or even be much less of a player.
If anything, it's probably just to the point of knowing or recognizing names now because he's been pretty busy the last 4 years.

[RiverDog]

Possibly, but players change over the years. Some come in as QBs but end up as DE's so if he knew a kid at 19 and he's now 23 that player might be a totally different person with a completely different skill set or even be much less of a player.
If anything, it's probably just to the point of knowing or recognizing names now because he's been pretty busy the last 4 years.

I agree. But my question is (1) do you agree that Pete's college experience was a factor in our personnel successes and if the answer is yes, (2) can we continue that success into the indefinite future now that as you point out, Pete's relationship is to the point of simply recognizing names?

[NorthHawk]

Possibly, but players change over the years. Some come in as QBs but end up as DE's so if he knew a kid at 19 and he's now 23 that player might be a totally different person with a completely different skill set or even be much less of a player.
If anything, it's probably just to the point of knowing or recognizing names now because he's been pretty busy the last 4 years.

I agree. But my question is (1) do you agree that Pete's college experience was a factor in our personnel successes and if the answer is yes, (2) can we continue that success into the indefinite future now that as you point out, Pete's relationship is to the point of simply recognizing names?

Some initially. If he selected largely players from his college teams or opponents then moreso, but their choices were of players he either didn't really know or had little dealings with until they started looking at scouting reports and film. Keep in mind their first draft they needed players at almost every position and he still didn't take a lot of former players or PAC 12 guys like a lot of us thought.
I think the influence of his college days is decreasing every year, but his coaching contacts probably remain strong and they might help him when he's asking about his type of player.
But I think they mostly rely on their scouts and who they identify. There's just too much work to be a scout and run an NFL team.
Just my opinion, but it's what I get from listening to the scouts and FO talk about the process.

[monkey]

Personally I think that much of the perception that Pete had an edge because he was coaching in college was overblown by the media.
You never heard the same thing being said of Hairball, or now with Chip...why not? Wouldn't they have the exact same advantage?

When is the media going to suggest that Hairball is having problems identifying players now that he's even further removed from college than Pete?
How many years of advantage do the mediots think that Chip Kelly now has?
Why didn't that advantage help all those failed college coaches in the past? Remember all those big name college coaches who have mostly failed miserably? How did their familiarity with the college players help them?

See what I am saying? Overblown...badly.

[HumanCockroach]

I don't know really, he does seem to lean to players he recruited, but selects a surprising few that he actually coached. I mean if you look down the list, this team is littered with guys he recruited but wasn't able to get to USC but very few he actually coached ( I think only Smith is on the team, and the RB that tried to convert to LB last season) really a surprisingly low number in my eyes, as opposed to the other side of the coin. Not sure it will continue to work, but I believe while he has a major say, I'm not entirely sure it isn't more of Schneider's imput in that regard. Wilson wasn't on Pete's radar, he was Schneiders guy, while Lynch was a former recruit that Pete fought to get. Seems like there are guys that one or the other pounds the table for, and there is no ego between the two so you end up with a great mix of uniquely talented group as a whole..

[NorthHawk]

Yah, they're on the same page and that's important.
I wonder if the recruits he missed he signs because of what he saw then. I'm sure it's somewhat of a factor.

[obiken]

I have to agree with NCH, on the defensive side of the ball the Pete gets an A; the offense, that's a different kettle of fish. Okung, was no brainer, Moffett was a bust, Carpenter is a bust, they wont pick up his option, the rest are, shall I steal a line, pedestrian. We got Beast and Harvin through FA. Our WR corps, is good to the point that picking any WR at that point in the draft over the guy from Nevada was a mistake. No, not a huge mistake, but a mistake. The OLman from Marshall may be a steal. But we needed a starter on the OL. QB is solid but he got lucky, and we have no bona fide backup for a mobile qb. Chris Carter was correct our WR corps was pedestrian, except when we played average defenses, with them we ran up the score. Denver's Defense was a paper tiger. We had a hell of a time moving the ball against good defenses like STL, SF, or AZ. Moreover, if Okung goes this year for 8 games, we are hosed.

To sum up, the greatness of PC as a coach is the way he treats them like partners, but is cutthroat in realizing they are a commodity. IF they cant play or produce he gets rid of them within a season. Ala Aaron Curry. But he not a draft guru, he goes through a huge volume of players to build a team. He is not the team builder that Joe Gibbs was, not yet anyway. FA has been a huge part of our/his success. Never the less, as Deng Xiaoping once said, it doesn't matter what kind of cat it is, as long at it catches the rat.

[HumanCockroach]

Sorry Obi, you are off base on this one. Lynch and Harvin both came via trade, not FA; as did Clemmon's, Bennett, Avril were FA. Red was already here, as was.Mebane Thomas was a "no brainer" and they got lucky with Wagner, Sherman,Maxwell, KJ etc. See how when turned around it makes no sense to ignore what has been identified and acquired. There are just as many stars on that D as O that could be dismissed as "luck" but ultimately the FO found, drafted,traded, resigned and signed the guys on offense, same as defense. They may not have hit home run after home run on offense, but the process of pretending like the offense hasn't gotten better each and every year from where Carroll and co started is silly, inaccurate and kind of foolish.

[obiken]

Ok, YOUR right, but Harvin and Lynch were not draftees, they were known commodities. I don't see where our offense is as deadly as the Niners, we just had a better defense, not by much. Where did we rank offensively vs. defensively. We ranked 16th on Offense and 2 on defense. The 9ers ranked 3rd on Defense and 9th on offense. They had a WAY better draft than we did. No doubt it was a special year, but like River said they are going to have to do way better job drafting in the future than the last 2 years. I am just saying his strength as a coach is as a player manager, not as a drafter. IF you are another team what offense would rather stop ours or the Niners. To me that question is a no brainer. Kap, Davis, Gore, Bolden, and Crabtree, who was out for a long time, and they added Johnston from Buffalo. VS. Wilson, Lynch, and Harvin, IF he stays healthy. On Offense they are going to be scary good. My hope is the Niners implode!

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats? ... 447263-n=1

Sorry Obi, your wrong on those rankings. Seattle was ranked 18 however Santa Clara happened to rank 24, Seattle had more yards a game, and more points a game. Discredit the offensive playmakers if you want, but IMHO there really isn't much choice. Yes, I would definitely take Davis over Zach, but there is NO way I take Gore, Boldin,or Kap over any of the corresponding offensive weapons in seattle, and I would definitely take the receivers in seattle as a group over crabtree, boldin and johnson. you can fret about it all you want, but at least use real stats, not made up ones. ( while we are at it, Seattles d was #1 not #2)

You are really, reaching here, false stats to support a claim that Santa Clara's offense is better? Really? I just don't see the angle.

[RiverDog]

Personally I think that much of the perception that Pete had an edge because he was coaching in college was overblown by the media.
You never heard the same thing being said of Hairball, or now with Chip...why not? Wouldn't they have the exact same advantage?

When is the media going to suggest that Hairball is having problems identifying players now that he's even further removed from college than Pete?
How many years of advantage do the mediots think that Chip Kelly now has?
Why didn't that advantage help all those failed college coaches in the past? Remember all those big name college coaches who have mostly failed miserably? How did their familiarity with the college players help them?

See what I am saying? Overblown...badly.

Hairball didn't build his team. He walked into it. Pete had to build his, and as a consequence, had a lot more open spots on his roster for his throws of the dice.

Plus there's a personality difference (no duh?). Pete is the type that could talk to the kitchen cook, the nighttime security guard, or the pizza delivery boy. That's is a huge advantage when searching for intelligence on personnel acquisition. I get the impression that Hairball is a bit more reserved.

[NorthHawk]

Personally I think that much of the perception that Pete had an edge because he was coaching in college was overblown by the media.
You never heard the same thing being said of Hairball, or now with Chip...why not? Wouldn't they have the exact same advantage?

When is the media going to suggest that Hairball is having problems identifying players now that he's even further removed from college than Pete?
How many years of advantage do the mediots think that Chip Kelly now has?
Why didn't that advantage help all those failed college coaches in the past? Remember all those big name college coaches who have mostly failed miserably? How did their familiarity with the college players help them?

See what I am saying? Overblown...badly.

Hairball didn't build his team. He walked into it. Pete had to build his, and as a consequence, had a lot more open spots on his roster for his throws of the dice.

Plus there's a personality difference (no duh?). Pete is the type that could talk to the kitchen cook, the nighttime security guard, or the pizza delivery boy. That's is a huge advantage when searching for intelligence on personnel acquisition. I get the impression that Hairball is a bit more reserved.

I think he's more abrasive than reserved. He certainly rubs me the wrong way.

[RiverDog]

Personally I think that much of the perception that Pete had an edge because he was coaching in college was overblown by the media.
You never heard the same thing being said of Hairball, or now with Chip...why not? Wouldn't they have the exact same advantage?

When is the media going to suggest that Hairball is having problems identifying players now that he's even further removed from college than Pete?
How many years of advantage do the mediots think that Chip Kelly now has?
Why didn't that advantage help all those failed college coaches in the past? Remember all those big name college coaches who have mostly failed miserably? How did their familiarity with the college players help them?

See what I am saying? Overblown...badly.

Hairball didn't build his team. He walked into it. Pete had to build his, and as a consequence, had a lot more open spots on his roster for his throws of the dice.

Plus there's a personality difference (no duh?). Pete is the type that could talk to the kitchen cook, the nighttime security guard, or the pizza delivery boy. That's is a huge advantage when searching for intelligence on personnel acquisition. I get the impression that Hairball is a bit more reserved.

I think he's more abrasive than reserved. He certainly rubs me the wrong way.

Agreed. The point is that Pete's a more personable guy and seems to me to be the type of person that can make friends more easily than Hairball, who rubs me the wrong way, too.

[obiken]

HCR, how did we end up at the place where I am being framed for hating PC? I don't like Pete's drafting, that's all. Then on this thread an the other one on Richardson, I was turned into a hater. During the Holmy era, I was a hater, but not now. Like I said, you win the title it doesn't matter how. I have serious doubts on the signings but I am not even going there. We have been a legit contender for 2 years running now, will we win next year? Who knows. I am happy!

[Futureite]

Personally I think that much of the perception that Pete had an edge because he was coaching in college was overblown by the media.
You never heard the same thing being said of Hairball, or now with Chip...why not? Wouldn't they have the exact same advantage?

When is the media going to suggest that Hairball is having problems identifying players now that he's even further removed from college than Pete?
How many years of advantage do the mediots think that Chip Kelly now has?
Why didn't that advantage help all those failed college coaches in the past? Remember all those big name college coaches who have mostly failed miserably? How did their familiarity with the college players help them?

See what I am saying? Overblown...badly.

Hairball didn't build his team. He walked into it. Pete had to build his, and as a consequence, had a lot more open spots on his roster for his throws of the dice.

Plus there's a personality difference (no duh?). Pete is the type that could talk to the kitchen cook, the nighttime security guard, or the pizza delivery boy. That's is a huge advantage when searching for intelligence on personnel acquisition. I get the impression that Hairball is a bit more reserved.

Pete once walked into a team that had made the SB the yr prior, didn't he? Not one that won 6 games the yr prior and then jettisoned 6 defensive starters, turned over the entire coaching staff in a strike shortened offseason - but a team that literally had walked onto the Superdome turf as a superbowl participant the yr before.

Seems like this story you keep telling has been lived by your own coach to a higher degree, except with a probowl QB and ready made defense already in place.

Given each coach's relative success at the same stage in their careers I'd say JH is doing pretty good, wouldn't you?

Lol I swear the one-upping will never end. I am trying to kearn to have fun with this and see the joy in proving everything from the QB to the waterboy is 'better'. Help me out, cause you have the coach part nailed already.

[monkey]

Oh no...you have to hear a Seahawks slant on a Seahawks fan site!
How terrible that must be for you.

[monkey]

Just a reminder to those who don't like the draft: Since Pete and John have taken over the team, the media has RIPPED every one of their drafts! Until recently that is...apparently they've learned their lesson and now just admit, they have "no idea who he is, or why the Seahawks took him there, but the Seahawks must or they wouldn't have taken him", then give them a B grade and move on to talking about other teams.

Remember that, just a few years back the Seahawks picked EXACTLY the guy who most everyone wanted, because he was the consensus safest best pick at our draft position. He was considered by all the mediots to be the most athletic, to have the highest upside, to be the most NFL ready of pretty much anyone in that years draft.

His name was Aaron Curry.

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.ninersnation.com/2010/9/4/16 ... ers-53-man

Sometimes I wonder if you remember what was there before Harbaugh showed up, arguing that Harbaughs cupboards were bare, or that he had to build from scratch isnt close to the truth. Where as Seattle currently has 2 players on the entire roster that were with the team when he took over, Harbaugh conversely has more ALL PRO'S on the team than that, that were there when he arrived.. I provided a link for a "refresher" for you.

[RiverDog]

Pete once walked into a team that had made the SB the yr prior, didn't he? [/u]Not one that won 6 games the yr prior and then jettisoned 6 defensive starters, turned over the entire coaching staff in a strike shortened offseason - but a team that literally had walked onto the Superdome turf as a superbowl participant the yr before.

Seems like this story you keep telling has been lived by your own coach to a higher degree, except with a probowl QB and ready made defense already in place.

Given each coach's relative success at the same stage in their careers I'd say JH is doing pretty good, wouldn't you?

Lol I swear the one-upping will never end. I am trying to kearn to have fun with this and see the joy in proving everything from the QB to the waterboy is 'better'. Help me out, cause you have the coach part nailed already.

Pete's walking into a team that went to the SB the previous year doesn't mean that team was stacked. Take a look at the Ravens. They won the damn thing and look at the season they had last year, and they didn't have a different coaching staff/philosophy to implement. I don't recall what the Patriot roster looked like back then, but it shouldn't have been too surprising that a change of coaches led to the next season being a down year. Besides, that was 15 years ago. I'm sure Pete learned a thing or two about his NFL experience from the previous century.

Never once did I say that Hairball wasn't "doing good", and have consistently praised him, perhaps more so than most members in this forum, in particular for his development of quarterbacks. But that wasn't what we were talking about. The discussion was about building a team through the draft, and it is obvious that Pete had a much larger challenge than did Hairball.

[NorthHawk]

http://www.ninersnation.com/2010/9/4/1669707/2010-san-francisco-49ers-53-man

Sometimes I wonder if you remember what was there before Harbaugh showed up, arguing that Harbaughs cupboards were bare, or that he had to build from scratch isnt close to the truth. Where as Seattle currently has 2 players on the entire roster that were with the team when he took over, Harbaugh conversely has more ALL PRO'S on the team than that, that were there when he arrived.. I provided a link for a "refresher" for you.

That's quite an impressive core group.
They've made changes the last 4 years, but it was already at the point where only a few more key additions were required - and they found them.

I think their OL was deeper and better than ours is today.

[Futureite]

Pete once walked into a team that had made the SB the yr prior, didn't he? [/u]Not one that won 6 games the yr prior and then jettisoned 6 defensive starters, turned over the entire coaching staff in a strike shortened offseason - but a team that literally had walked onto the Superdome turf as a superbowl participant the yr before.

Seems like this story you keep telling has been lived by your own coach to a higher degree, except with a probowl QB and ready made defense already in place.

Given each coach's relative success at the same stage in their careers I'd say JH is doing pretty good, wouldn't you?

Lol I swear the one-upping will never end. I am trying to kearn to have fun with this and see the joy in proving everything from the QB to the waterboy is 'better'. Help me out, cause you have the coach part nailed already.

Pete's walking into a team that went to the SB the previous year doesn't mean that team was stacked. Take a look at the Ravens. They won the damn thing and look at the season they had last year, and they didn't have a different coaching staff/philosophy to implement. I don't recall what the Patriot roster looked like back then, but it shouldn't have been too surprising that a change of coaches led to the next season being a down year. Besides, that was 15 years ago. I'm sure Pete learned a thing or two about his NFL experience from the previous century.

Never once did I say that Hairball wasn't "doing good", and have consistently praised him, perhaps more so than most members in this forum, in particular for his development of quarterbacks. But that wasn't what we were talking about. The discussion was about building a team through the draft, and it is obvious that Pete had a much larger challenge than did Hairball.

Ya you're right, my bad. What always bothers me about this argument is that Carroll and JH are coaches. Yes they have inout in the personnel decisions (I believe Pete has ultimate veto power whereas JH must cede to Baalke), but a good part of the legwork on finding these guys or "building" a roster falls on the GM, scouts, etc. No coach has the time or ability to handle all of that. So if we are not discussing Schneider's and Baalke's building of the roster, the equation is not complete. Baalje has brought in a ton of our draft and FA talent; Bowman, Aldon Smith, Iupati, A. Davis, Reid, Goodwin, Whitner on and in. There were a few pieces when he got here, but the talent people talk about being "there" is flat out wrong.

Schneider and Carroll did have a bigger overhaul though and have done an amazing job from secondary to LBs to even finding O-linemen that play within the system. They obviously have some type of formula up there that is producing outstanding results.

[HumanCockroach]

That roster wasn't a few pieces Future, it was half the starters when Harbaugh took over, with quite a few still remaining, I doubt anyone is arguing that Harbaugh didn't have work to do, just that the floor he started on was MUCH higher than where Carroll did.

[RiverDog]

Ya you're right, my bad. What always bothers me about this argument is that Carroll and JH are coaches. Yes they have inout in the personnel decisions (I believe Pete has ultimate veto power whereas JH must cede to Baalke), but a good part of the legwork on finding these guys or "building" a roster falls on the GM, scouts, etc. No coach has the time or ability to handle all of that. So if we are not discussing Schneider's and Baalke's building of the roster, the equation is not complete. Baalje has brought in a ton of our draft and FA talent; Bowman, Aldon Smith, Iupati, A. Davis, Reid, Goodwin, Whitner on and in. There were a few pieces when he got here, but the talent people talk about being "there" is flat out wrong.

Schneider and Carroll did have a bigger overhaul though and have done an amazing job from secondary to LBs to even finding O-linemen that play within the system. They obviously have some type of formula up there that is producing outstanding results.

A "few" pieces? You mean like Justin Smith, Vernon Davis, Frank Gore, Joe Staley, and Patrick Willis, just to name those that come to mind?

I give Hairball a ton of credit for bringing together that random assembly of talent, but you can't deny that his roster was littered with Pro Bowlers in comparison to many other first year coaches, plus his timing was perfect, as the division was incredibly weak, as the prior year every team finished below .500 for the first time since the merger.

[Futureite]

Ya you're right, my bad. What always bothers me about this argument is that Carroll and JH are coaches. Yes they have inout in the personnel decisions (I believe Pete has ultimate veto power whereas JH must cede to Baalke), but a good part of the legwork on finding these guys or "building" a roster falls on the GM, scouts, etc. No coach has the time or ability to handle all of that. So if we are not discussing Schneider's and Baalke's building of the roster, the equation is not complete. Baalje has brought in a ton of our draft and FA talent; Bowman, Aldon Smith, Iupati, A. Davis, Reid, Goodwin, Whitner on and in. There were a few pieces when he got here, but the talent people talk about being "there" is flat out wrong.

Schneider and Carroll did have a bigger overhaul though and have done an amazing job from secondary to LBs to even finding O-linemen that play within the system. They obviously have some type of formula up there that is producing outstanding results.

A "few" pieces? You mean like Justin Smith, Vernon Davis, Frank Gore, Joe Staley, and Patrick Willis, just to name those that come to mind?

I give Hairball a ton of credit for bringing together that random assembly of talent, but you can't deny that his roster was littered with Pro Bowlers in comparison to many other first year coaches, plus his timing was perfect, as the division was incredibly weak, as the prior year every team finished below .500 for the first time since the merger.

Well not to be sarcastic, but you just ignored my entire point regarding the GM's role. You basically listed all of the star players that were here prior to Baalke. You'd be hard pressed to find any team that does not have a couple probowlers or potential probowlers. Even the Jags had blackmon and Jones-Drew, off the top of my head. Baalke a good portion of what is here. If you are trying to argue that Carroll coaches better than JH, I'll disagree. Neither of them hand built their rosters.

[Futureite]

That roster wasn't a few pieces Future, it was half the starters when Harbaugh took over, with quite a few still remaining, I doubt anyone is arguing that Harbaugh didn't have work to do, just that the floor he started on was MUCH higher than where Carroll did.

This is true. But everytime this point is made, there is this underlying sarcasm or unstated opinion that Pete Carroll is a superior coach. Or, that practice squad players like Alex Boone or bench players like Bowman were probowlers when JH stepped in. They weren't, and in fact the moves to start them and plenty of other moves were highly criticized here. Now people look back in hindsight and make these ridiculous comnents like "the talent was there". These guys are good noe in large part because they were/are coached well and put in position to succeed. Ahmad Brrooks wasn't a starter when JH got here. Whitner wasn't here. Rogers wasn't here. The guys that stepped in for Willis and Aldon last yr (Skuta and Willhoite) weren't here. Rahim Brock was an UFA and it goes on and on.

Carroll has proved himself at both levels now. JH has had historic success at both levels. They can clearly both coach and that's about where my opinion on it ends.

[HumanCockroach]

Not sure how "the talent is there" can be construed as a ridiculous statement, because to put it bluntly, it was indeed "there" whether they were using it correctly or not is irrelevant to that statement in it's entirety. What that has to do with roster building has little to nothing to do with it, recognising and utilising it all all fine and dandy, but IMO HAVING it is a HUGE. Important piece of the puzzle. I've yet to see anyone arguing "coaching ability" though per your own admission, Carroll has had more success ( because he has the only thing that matters, while Harbaugh, well doesn't) of COURSEpeople on a SEAHAWKS board are going to side with Carroll as a coach for numerous reasons, just like you feel it necessary to side with yours, but the fact remains Carroll, not Harbaugh has has more success ( at least in a tangible way, ie, championships, ). You yourself set the parameters on what constitutes success, so I would expect you to maintain those parameters now that you no longer have the upper hand, so to speak. Carroll's work on turning over this roster is UNPARRALLELED in NFL history ( at least in regards to gained success) the man set an NFL record for transactions in one season his first year for the love of god, dismissing the talent level, and how many people remain from that original team isn't helping your position in the least, and trying to profess some sort of equally footing isn't either.

I have never seen a complete dismantling and subsequent success as fast as this FO accomplished, have you? That is really the crux of the whole debate, have you seen it before? And if so, who? When? And did they win a SB that fast?if not, they don't measure up....

[monkey]

I have never seen a complete dismantling and subsequent success as fast as this FO accomplished, have you? That is really the crux of the whole debate, have you seen it before? And if so, who? When? And did they win a SB that fast?if not, they don't measure up....

No coach in NFL history has ever come to a team, BLOWN IT UP the way that Carroll did, (a record number of free agent transactions) and taken his team to a Superbowl win in four short years.
It's never ever happened before.
Coach Carroll is doing things that are simply unprecedented.

By contrast, Harbaugh inherited a team with a lot of pro-bowl talent that had badly underachieved, mostly due to coaching ineptitude, and quickly turned the program around.

That's a really neat accomplishment, it really is, but it's unarguably eclipsed by what Carroll has done.

[Futureite]

I have never seen a complete dismantling and subsequent success as fast as this FO accomplished, have you? That is really the crux of the whole debate, have you seen it before? And if so, who? When? And did they win a SB that fast?if not, they don't measure up....

No coach in NFL history has ever come to a team, BLOWN IT UP the way that Carroll did, (a record number of free agent transactions) and taken his team to a Superbowl win in four short years.
It's never ever happened before.
Coach Carroll is doing things that are simply unprecedented.

By contrast, Harbaugh inherited a team with a lot of pro-bowl talent that had badly underachieved, mostly due to coaching ineptitude, and quickly turned the program around.

That's a really neat accomplishment, it really is, but it's unarguably eclipsed by what Carroll has done.

I am not arguing against Carroll. He has won titles in college and the NFL, so the man is clearly talented. I have no idea what players were on various rosters, but plenty of teams have done 180 degree turns even in recent yrs. As an NFC West guy you should remember the Rams in 1999. Going off of memory, that was a 3 win team the yr prior that won the SB. Look at how quickly Sean Payton turned an historically bad franchise into a perenniel SB contender. Was the talent there too, and just needed the right coaching?

You cannot look at every team that wins and claim all they needed was the right coach. Alex Boone was an UDFA who sat on the practice squad.Ahmad Brooks was considered a project/bust who was a backup here to Parys/Lawson. Goodwin was a 34yr old center that the Saints cut. Rogers and Whitner were considered bottom tier FAs who lasted until the end of the FA period. Bruce Miller was a 7th rd pick. These guys ALL became probowlers here. They were "there" for other teams to take too, but those other teams did not see their value or talent.

Again - Carroll and JH are not the GMs. Neither of them "built" the respective teams. Yes, they have a hand in player personnel decisions but they have neither the time or ability to comb through the 1,000's of prospects and potential FAs. That's what scouts and GMs do. If we are duscusding building a rister, then we are also discusding Schneider and Baalje. Baalke was our scout for yrs and became our GM in 2010, when we drafted Iupati, A.Davis and Bowman. The guy is directly responsible for 4 of our starting O-linemen, Aldon Smith and Bowman and our entire starting secondary! Lol don't give me this complete BS that any of this was "there".

Carroll is to be praised, and he has received plenty of it. But how do you know JH would not have kept some of the players he let go and gotten them to produce, like the LB you drafted out of Georgia Tech? What if Carrol came oboard here and sent Alex Smith packing, let Ahmad Brooks walk. No one knows any of this.

Carroll did it his way. JH did it his. No one can really argue that they are not great coaches.

[NorthHawk]

Carroll has final say over the roster. I'm not sure JH does, too.
As well, it's Pete's philosophy Schneider is buying into and he gets the types of players Pete wants.
We are lucky they both put their egos aside to do this as it seems they like each other, like working together, and listen to what either has to say.
That doesn't always happen in the NFL.
But make no mistake, Pete is the guy driving this team and who decided on the 200+ changes over 2 years during the initial rebuild.

[RiverDog]

Pete's done a fantastic job and I don't want to take anything away from what he's done for us and without a doubt has achieved one of the better rebuilds, at least in modern times, but I'm not sure if what he has done is "unprecedented" or not. There's been some very good, very quick rebuild jobs in the history of the game. George Allen took a franchise that had one winning season in the previous 15 years to the SB in his first year, and did it prior to free agency by trading away multiple draft choices. His quote in doing so, ie "the future is now", became a household phrase. In 1958, Vince Lombardi's Packers in his first year were 1-10-1, and by 1960, he had them a play away from winning the NFL Championship, again in a time before free agency and before parity leveled the playing field. The Carolina Panthers took full advantage of free agency and went from nothing at all to NFC Championship game in 3 years, so it's not Earth stopping news that Pete was able to achieve success as quickly as he did.

But it is undeniable that what Carroll has done with the Seahawks is a lot more impressive than what Hairball has done with the Niners, especially considering he has a Lombardi and Hairball doesn't. Consequently, and for much the same reasons, what Hairball did at Stanford is far more impressive than what Carroll did at USC.

[HumanCockroach]

HCR, how did we end up at the place where I am being framed for hating PC? I don't like Pete's drafting, that's all. Then on this thread an the other one on Richardson, I was turned into a hater. During the Holmy era, I was a hater, but not now. Like I said, you win the title it doesn't matter how. I have serious doubts on the signings but I am not even going there. We have been a legit contender for 2 years running now, will we win next year? Who knows. I am happy!

Never said you were a hater, and certainly didn't "frame" you as such, why you feel it neceesary to diminish the accomplishments of this team, or the quality of it's players, I haven't a clue, however, if you are going to do it, at the very least use actual truthful statements to do it . You didn't, so I called you on it.

[HumanCockroach]

Far as I'm concerned SC was "lucky" to even make the trip to the game in the first place, as Kap tried to end their season in the first round by throwing the ball into the stomach of the defensive back... the way I see it, isn't the Seahawks were "lucky" so much as they ENDED the Niners luck that day.

[kalibane]

I wanted to sit this one out but Future c'mon dude stop skewing the facts here. The entire core of your team was on the roster before Harbaugh was hired.

1. 4/5 starting offensive linemen: Staley, Iupati, Boone, Davis
2. Your top 2 receiving threats: Crabtree, Davis
3. Your starting RB: Gore
4. Your entire starting defensive line: Justin Smith, Isaac Sopoaga, Ray McDonald
5. 3/4 of your linebacking corps: Bowman, Willis, Brooks
6. Tarell Brown at CB

That's over 60% of the starting lineup. It also doesn't take into account lost FA's like Dashon Goldson, guys who started and logged significant time but just aren't that good like Kyle Williams. Or guys/assests who aren't with you but brought back significant value to help augment the roster like Alex Smith fetching a 2nd round pick.

There is no comparison. There are 2 guys on the entire Seahawks roster that were there before Carroll got there (3 if you count Red Bryant who left this year). And don't come to me with this coaching nonsense like Harbaugh's coaching staff is what made Bowman the best ILB in the league. 1. The talent was there period. 2. If Harbaugh and the 9ers don't reach an extension we all know that Jim Tomsula will be the next head coach and he was in the 49ers organization before Harbaugh too.

Honestly it doesn't matter who is better, and the fact that Carroll had a bigger undertaking than Harbaugh did doesn't necessarily mean that Caroll and Schneider are hands down better than Baalke and Harbaugh but don't misrepresent the facts. There is no escaping the fact that Harbaugh had just about the entire core of this team intact the day he put ink to paper.