Will Pete Carroll be a success in Seattle?

[dave]

Poll

 

[killgod]

He'll be as awesome as he was in New England.

 

[dave]

Argh. Typo in the thread title.

 

[EmpireWF]

Define success.

I said yes because he should do better than Holmgren's final year and Mora's one season. I doubt he takes them to division titles, but you never know.

 

[dave]

Define success.

I said yes because he should do better than Holmgren's final year and Mora's one season. I doubt he takes them to division titles, but you never know.

I knew someone would ask that.

Look at your own team - how would you define success?

For me, it's annual playoff appearances, never finishing below .500, drafting successfully, possibly appearing in and winning a Super Bowl.

 

[Tailback U]

Carroll made sure that the Seahawks are going to allow him player personnel control, which he did not have in New England.

It's up in the air. To be honest, Seattle is not that good of a team. They have a ton of holes on offense and defense so it will take any coach at least 2-3 years to have success.

Not to mention Hasselbeck is steadily declining each and every year and getting up there and finding a franchise QB is about the hardest thing to do in all of sports.

So, if he fails, I don't know if I could put the blame all on him, unless they give him 3-5 years.

 

[dave]

If you're getting $7M a year and full control over player personnel, it's on you.
Look at Parcells in Miami, took him one year to turn the program around.
Same with Dimitroff and Smith in Atlanta.

 

[cf24]

I think he'll be...sleepless....in Seattle.

 

[Leftwich]

I think he has learned a lot about coaching since he went to USC. He'll have better success than he did at New England but I doubt he'll ever win a Superbowl.

 

[Tailback U]

If you're getting $7M a year and full control over player personnel, it's on you.

Money has nothing to do with it. I don't care if he's getting paid $100M a year, how much money he is being paid is not going to make his team better.

He needs time to rebuild that team. Like I said, if the Seahawks are patient and allow him to play out his contract, then Carroll can be blamed.

If they can him in 2 years for being under .500 then I can't blame him.

 

[OnlyOneBeerLeft]

i think he'll do pretty good, ran a pro style team at USC, and he was in New England and really didnt do too bad considering the Dolphins Bills and Jets, Colts were all playing well enough to win some games each year.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

He'll be good at negotiating contracts. He has lots of experience in paying his players

 

[BUCK3YE5]

Nope. Just a very good college coach in my eyes. (Kinda like Saban)

 

[Maynard]

if carroll had come from a lower prestige ncaa team...maybe like an iowa or utah or wisconsin where they are not a top 10 team by default, then i might think he has a chance. But look at his team....USC is a BCS team by default every year without even trying. the person who coaches these types of teams are nothing imo. any idiot can win with these teams.

thats why rich rod sucks balls so bad. How the hell do you fuck up a top tier team like michigan

 

[krulmichael]

I knew someone would ask that.

Look at your own team - how would you define success?

For me, it's annual playoff appearances, never finishing below .500, drafting successfully, possibly appearing in and winning a Super Bowl.

If I did that, then winning more than a couple of games a season would be success for me.

And to answer the original question, no I don't think he's going to be that successful...in fact, I'd say he may get into the playoffs once within the next 5 years (if he lasts that long).

 

[ralaw]

if carroll had come from a lower prestige ncaa team...maybe like an iowa or utah or wisconsin where they are not a top 10 team by default, then i might think he has a chance. But look at his team....USC is a BCS team by default every year without even trying. the person who coaches these types of teams are nothing imo. any idiot can win with these teams.

thats why rich rod sucks balls so bad. How the hell do you fuck up a top tier team like michigan

If nothing else Michigan should prove that for the most part coaches make programs. Do you remember USC the years before Carroll got there? I agree with you that top tier programs basically recruit themselves, but the coaches have to build those programs up first. Unlike 20 years ago the top highschool athletes of today go to the schools for the coach and not the school.

When he is done I see Carroll being around .500 as a coach, so I'm not sure if that is successful or not.

 

[Tailback U]

if carroll had come from a lower prestige ncaa team...maybe like an iowa or utah or wisconsin where they are not a top 10 team by default, then i might think he has a chance. But look at his team....USC is a BCS team by default every year without even trying. the person who coaches these types of teams are nothing imo. any idiot can win with these teams.

thats why rich rod sucks balls so bad. How the hell do you fuck up a top tier team like michigan

From 1983-1995, USC lost to Notre Dame 13 times in a row. From 1991-1998, USC lost to UCLA 8 times in a row. Paul Hackett took over in 1998 and went 19-18 in 3 years before he was replaced by Pete Carroll.

From 1996-2001, USC went 37-35, the second worst record over any 5-year span in the school's history, and for the first time finished outside of the Top 20 for 4 years in a row.

Pete Carroll didn't just win at USC, he dominated.

http://www.usctrojans.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/carroll_pete00.html

He is 96-19 (83.5%) in 9 years (2001-2008) as a college head coach (all at USC), the second best winning percentage of any current Division I coach with at least 5 years of experience.

His 88 victories through 2008 tied Bob Pruett of Marshall for most by a Division I coach in their first 8 seasons since 1900 (Penn's George Woodruff had 102 before then).

He reached 50 career USC wins faster than any head coach in Trojan history.

After starting off his Trojan career 2-5, he has gone 94-14 (87.0%) with a pair of national championships (2003-04).

He is 62-14 in Pac-10 games, giving him an 81.6% winning mark (a league record). His 62 Pac-10 wins* is the most of any active Pac-10 coach* are ninth most in league history (it's more victories than any other league coach with just 9 years tenure, as the coaches above him on the win ladder have at least 12 years of experience).

He has 35 victories over AP Top 25 teams (35-9 overall, 79.5%).

From 2002 to 2008, his teams won an unprecedented 7 consecutive Pac-10 titles, appeared in an NCAA-record 7 consecutive BCS bowls (including a pair of BCS Championship Games), recorded at least 11 victories in each of those 7 seasons (an NCAA record) and finished ranked in the AP Top 4 in each of those 7 seasons.

USC's 13, 25, 37, 48, 59, 71, 82, 88 and 96 wins during 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, 5-, 6-, 7-, 8- and 9-year spans under Carroll represent the winningest periods in Trojan history.

He is 6-2 in bowl games, including 6-1 in BCS games.

If "any retard could win at USC" then why has UCLA continued to struggle for nearly a decade when they are literally across the street?

 

[Sportsbuck]

If "any retard could win at USC" then why has UCLA continued to struggle for nearly a decade when they are literally across the street?

I ageree. Makes me wonder why Capital University continues to put struggle in D3 when they are right across the street from Ohio State. just busting your balls tailback

 

[Sven Draconian]

If Carrol gets 5 years he should be pretty successful. Above .500, consistant playoff threat. Anything better than that depends on developing a QB.

 

[strahanfan92]

Any chance Pete goes after Vick? I feel a college type QB like that will catch his interest..