Was it a case of he still needing to "cut his teeth" as an NFL HC (as did Belichick with the Browns), or was it a case of "following a Legend"? I may have to lean toward the former. I can't help but to think had Tuna stayed in NE the next few years that they would have had deeper playoff runs and maybe make, or win, another SB with '99 being a playoff year. It's not like "jumping off a sinking ship" as some opine of his other departures. The Pats seemed to just be getting started. Belichick suddenly making the Pats into what they were doesn't make Carroll's case look too good either.
Thoughts?
Pete Carroll's time with Pats, '97-thru-'99
-
74_75_78_79_
- Posts: 2489
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm
Re: Pete Carroll's time with Pats, '97-thru-'99
It's however you want to perceive it.
NE previous 10 years prior to Carroll: 2 playoff appearances and a division championship.
Carroll's first two years: 2 playoff appearances and and a division championship.
NE previous 2 years prior to Carroll: 6-10 and 11-5
Carroll's first two years: 10-6 and 9-7.
Carroll's last year in NE: 8-8
Belichick's first year: 5-11
Also, a bit different going into the playoffs with Zolak v. Brady.
Discounting the Brady era. When all three coaches had Bledsoe as their starting QB [for a majority of the season], like-for-like, Carroll is the only one who never had a losing season.
Depends on how you want to play with things to make how 'bad' 2 playoff appearances in 3 years is.
NE previous 10 years prior to Carroll: 2 playoff appearances and a division championship.
Carroll's first two years: 2 playoff appearances and and a division championship.
NE previous 2 years prior to Carroll: 6-10 and 11-5
Carroll's first two years: 10-6 and 9-7.
Carroll's last year in NE: 8-8
Belichick's first year: 5-11
Also, a bit different going into the playoffs with Zolak v. Brady.
Discounting the Brady era. When all three coaches had Bledsoe as their starting QB [for a majority of the season], like-for-like, Carroll is the only one who never had a losing season.
Depends on how you want to play with things to make how 'bad' 2 playoff appearances in 3 years is.
-
Brian wolf
- Posts: 3448
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am
Re: Pete Carroll's time with Pats, '97-thru-'99
They underachieved under Carroll, especially Glenn, who could have been great if Parcells stayed. Belichick came in and brought in former Jets as well to help the team.
Looking back at their 96/97 SB, its hard to believe that Parcells and Belichick were outcoached by Holmgren but the Pack had great receivers to foil their defense, though the Patriots played alot better throughout the game. Not running Curtis Martin more and controlling the ball hurt them as well.
Looking back at their 96/97 SB, its hard to believe that Parcells and Belichick were outcoached by Holmgren but the Pack had great receivers to foil their defense, though the Patriots played alot better throughout the game. Not running Curtis Martin more and controlling the ball hurt them as well.
-
74_75_78_79_
- Posts: 2489
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm
Re: Pete Carroll's time with Pats, '97-thru-'99
Going into that SBXXXI, Wolf, I was also thinking of the Pats beating GB a la Giants beating the Bills (or, later on, Pats beating Rams). Holmgren is a HOVG HC at the very least, but we are talking Tuna & Hoodie; so I feel the better all-around coaching staff lost that game.
You bring up very good points, Reaser. Carroll was not 'bad'. Many HCs filling in would have been quite worse. What I like about Pete now is that here he is the oldest NFL HC in the game and here he's very (southern Cali-like) youthful thus the most young-at-heart coach in the league! After threep-ing Jimmy Johnson in that '97 campaign, me and some of my Steeler-friends, in-person mind you, had to survive his defense in the divisional-round holding Slash/Bettis to 7 points and then, in our end-zone seats, witness our own defense having to hold-off them scary Bledsoe desperation bombs at the very end that could have won it for the Pats!
But it's just my opinion in that I can't help but feel that Tuna/Hoodie had at least another SB-berth to get to in that brief window (if only because they were already there; the continuity of it). And, this time, not by way of a Jags/Broncos-upset, but because they were actually the best team in the entire conference or maybe even the deserving-Lombardi-winner as well. I feel Carroll, by the time '99 ended, cut enough teeth; was now 'ready' to be that SB-caliber NFL HC. But he simply had a college legacy to build first. And then came 2010 (and-beyond!)
What I do remember, in '97, was Bledsoe during that 4-0 start, expressing his not quite liking playing under Tuna. Already publicly preferring Carroll over him. At the time I felt it was simply a 'sensitive' kid wanting to play for a 'nice' 'players-coach' instead of a 'tough' SB one. But, turns out years later, maybe not quite. End of day, if Tuna does go down as the better HC than Carroll, it won't be by a hell of much. And if Pete wins a couple more Vinces before hanging it up...
You bring up very good points, Reaser. Carroll was not 'bad'. Many HCs filling in would have been quite worse. What I like about Pete now is that here he is the oldest NFL HC in the game and here he's very (southern Cali-like) youthful thus the most young-at-heart coach in the league! After threep-ing Jimmy Johnson in that '97 campaign, me and some of my Steeler-friends, in-person mind you, had to survive his defense in the divisional-round holding Slash/Bettis to 7 points and then, in our end-zone seats, witness our own defense having to hold-off them scary Bledsoe desperation bombs at the very end that could have won it for the Pats!
But it's just my opinion in that I can't help but feel that Tuna/Hoodie had at least another SB-berth to get to in that brief window (if only because they were already there; the continuity of it). And, this time, not by way of a Jags/Broncos-upset, but because they were actually the best team in the entire conference or maybe even the deserving-Lombardi-winner as well. I feel Carroll, by the time '99 ended, cut enough teeth; was now 'ready' to be that SB-caliber NFL HC. But he simply had a college legacy to build first. And then came 2010 (and-beyond!)
What I do remember, in '97, was Bledsoe during that 4-0 start, expressing his not quite liking playing under Tuna. Already publicly preferring Carroll over him. At the time I felt it was simply a 'sensitive' kid wanting to play for a 'nice' 'players-coach' instead of a 'tough' SB one. But, turns out years later, maybe not quite. End of day, if Tuna does go down as the better HC than Carroll, it won't be by a hell of much. And if Pete wins a couple more Vinces before hanging it up...
-
Brian wolf
- Posts: 3448
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am
Re: Pete Carroll's time with Pats, '97-thru-'99
Schneider as GM has been giving Carroll talent for years but the Seahawks just cant seem to get it done again. They better hurry up because Wilson may not stay much longer and though looking young, Carroll aint getting any younger.
What has been the problem with Seattle since the SB losing turnover in early 2015? Inconsistent and often injured running backs ? Bad offensive line play ? Wilson holding on to the ball too often, rather than getting rid of it ? Or finally paying All-Pros on defense, who lost their hunger to dominate and got replaced by players who arent nearly as talented ? Whatever the reason, Carroll needs to prove he can win it all again but I think his ship has sailed ... hope the team can prove me wrong ...
What has been the problem with Seattle since the SB losing turnover in early 2015? Inconsistent and often injured running backs ? Bad offensive line play ? Wilson holding on to the ball too often, rather than getting rid of it ? Or finally paying All-Pros on defense, who lost their hunger to dominate and got replaced by players who arent nearly as talented ? Whatever the reason, Carroll needs to prove he can win it all again but I think his ship has sailed ... hope the team can prove me wrong ...