Pete Carroll with his "top priority".

Seattle Seahawks: Liar, Liar, Pete's On Fire: Why I Don't Trust Coach Carroll


With the recent whirlwind that has been the NFL offseason, along with the recent college football recruiting scandals, it got me thinking about Coach Pete Carroll and how I don’t trust a dang thing that comes out of his mouth. Let me tell you why.

1)      Sketchy to begin with. He magically appeared as the Seahawks’ head coach right as the USC recruiting scandal started hitting the fan. Does this mean he is guilty or a horrible person? No, of course not, but it may tell us something about Pete and his willingness to throw his boys to the sharks to save his own Astroturf.

2)      Matt Hasselbeck as a “top priority”. At the end of last season, Pete made it very clear that re-signing Matt Hasselbeck was a “top priority”, his words, not mine. Regardless of how you feel about Matt’s departure, it is obvious now that Pete was talking out his asteroid. The deal they offered and the effort they went into re-signing Matt illustrated just how low a priority Matt really was. If a guy wants a two-year deal instead of a one-year deal and he is your “top priority”, this seems to be a no-brainer. Hell, if he wanted, dare I say it, a three-year deal, this too would be a small price to pay as your top priority. In other words, Pete said what he said not because it was the truth, but because it would help his agenda. Maybe that agenda was making ‘Hawk fans feel like he was giving respect to a local legend before showing his Astroglide the door. Regardless of his agenda, Pete’s actions spoke louder than his words.

3)      Pete believes in competition. Apparently what he really means is “I’m an astrology-faced liar”. When Pete sold the farm last year for Charlie Whitehurst, he made it clear that he wanted Charlie to challenge and compete with Hasselbeck. As a Hasselbeck fan, I thought it was insulting that a player with Matt’s experience would have to “compete” with a career third-stringer. But I did respect the idea that everyone had to compete and earn their starting a job. Apparently what Pete really meant to say is “I play favorites and make excuses for it”. This year when they brought in Tavaris Jackson (aka Whitehurst 2.0), I thought to myself, “Well, Tavaris hasn’t done anything to respect in his career, but I guess it makes sense to bring him in and make Whitehurst compete and earn his starting job”. But no, before Tavaris even had a chance to snap a ball as a Seahawk, he was named as the starter.

4)      Pete lies for no apparent reason or he is a dumb-asinine coach who doesn’t know what’s going down on his own team. Days before he cut kicker Brandon Coutu, he said that the kicker competition was one of the best competitions in the preseason and was going to go down to the wire.  Of course what he really meant is “I’ve made a decision and Coutu will soon be unemployed”. Either that or he really had no clue that Coutu was a couple days away from adding to the US unemployment statistics. Either way, I this was the final straw that we can’t believe a dang thing this man says.

Go Hawks. Hopefully Pete is just lying about how bad we look in preseason.

Next Seahawks Game View full schedule »
Thursday, Aug 2828 Aug7:00at Oakland RaidersBuy Tickets
Dick's Sporting Goods presents "Hell Week":

Tags: Pete Carroll Seattle Seahawks

  • BlakeThiessen

    I feel like you might have been a fan of Jim Mora Jr…

  • hollowpoint7

    Im not going to criticize him we won the NFC North last

  • Thoder

    A response to your points.

    1) I think your reading more into Pete leaving USC when he did. First off the charges against USC didn’t have anything to do with wrong doing by Pete directly. Indeed it happened on Pete’s watch but, I can see the same thing happening to many college coaches. The investigation had already been on going long before the Seahawks talked to Pete about becoming head coach. Pete had wanted another chance to coach in the NFL as would most NCAA coaches. With the situation in Seattle at the time do you really expect Pete to say no? Come on man..

    2) I think Hasselbeck was a top priority. He was offered a 2 year contract to return both before the lockout and after. Titians however, offered him a 3 year contract. I can totally understand why we wouldn’t offer Matt a 3 year contract based on his age, and injury history. We have a really young OL that is going to make mistakes. That means as we have seen in the preseason that whoever the starter is can expect to spend alot of time on their back until the OL gels. Not to mention we are looking for the QB of the future. That means that giving Matt a 3 year deal could end up costing us alot in cap penalties should we need to release him before the end of the contract. I think our front office made the right decision here even though we will suffer this season because of it. They made the best choice for our future.

    3) Play favorites? Come on man Pete didn’t draft Taylor Mays in the first round! hehe Naming Jackson the starter was the right move. Again going to the OL situation with 2 rookies and 2 youngsters Jackson has the mobility to survive the expected growing pains of our young OL. Add that to the fact it is a new system that Charlie hadn’t ever played in coupled with the fact Jackson has played in this system for several years. Not to mention the Offensive play caller for this system and Jackson have worked together for what 6 years? Come on man! Are you looking at what is really going on? Thought it was a great move to get Rice to catch for Jackson who was also in the same system. That shows our front office is thinking about giving us the best chance to succeed.

    4) Upset that we cut a young kicker? Really? Brandon Coutu showed promise in camp but, gotta ask you didn’t you watch the preseason games he played in? Coutu couldn’t get the ball deep enough in the endzone to force touchbacks. Unless you want us to keep two kickers with one for Kickoffs and one for FG’s this was the correct move.

    To be honest you come across as a bit harsh and emotional. No plan ever goes the way we want it too but, I see Pete making smart decisions not telling lies. We likely will have one of the youngest teams in the league this season which means we will have growing pains. I am all for calling someone out when it is deserved but, after reading your article it is clear your looking for the negative instead of analyzing the facts. Lets drop the emotions and talk about what is really happening.

  • Thoder

    And beat the defending champs at home!

  • Thoder

    All that said I would like to know what happened with Lofa though. Was it he lost a step? Chemistry? Money only? Anyone have thoughts on that subject?

  • JosephMiranda

    Its Tarvaris Jackson u have a typo in 3rd paragraph lol looks like Pete Carroll isn’t the only one making mistakes here.

  • JosephMiranda

    Its Tarvaris Jackson Not Tavaris…… You have 3 typo’s in 3rd paragraph lol looks like Pete Carroll isn’t the only one making mistakes here……

  • Thoder

    I did not know this till today but, lofa had surgery on both knees this offseason from what I have read. I would have thought he would have found a new team already too.

  • DarinPike

    I believe Lofa was going to lose his starting job. Too much to pay a backup, and too humbling for Lofa to take a step back.

  • DarinPike

    I have to say…you lost me when you didn’t even know the name of Seattle’s starting QB. It is Tarvaris. To me his biggest “lie” was leading fans to believe another announcement would be made about the QB position. He had to name someone as a starter and chose T Jack because of his experience in the system.

    As for Coutu…did you ever stop and think that maybe Pete said what he did about the K position to stir a little buzz and possibly help him get a tryout elsewhere? There are a lot of teams with turnover at the K position this year.

  • JerredClouse

    Where did I miss state the starting QB? And actually, despite what you think, Pete didn’t have to name a starter. He could have let the two compete in camp and THEN name a starter. The point is, you haven’t said anything to the POINT of the article: You can’t trust what Pete says. While you are making excuses for Pete lying about the kicker situation, you fail to acknowledge that the premise of the article is correct. If you want to prove me wrong, prove that Pete didn’t lie.

  • JerredClouse

    @Thoder Let me reiterate something: The point of the article is that you can’t trust what Pete Carol says. Your very long rebuttal doesn’t actual comment on the point the article, but nonetheless, I’ll respond.

    1) This is the closest you get to a legit argument against my article. Of course we don’t know all the details of the situation, so maybe good ol’ Pete knew nothing about the scandal. What we do know for sure is that Pete was there when bad things went on, that he left before he would have to deal with it, and he lost the USC National Championship title in the process. I’m not an expert on the scandal, so I’ll admit that this example may be a poor example of Pete and his fascination with lying. I was using this example as a means of illustrating my point less than proving my point. But nonetheless, I’ll acknowledge that this rebuttal holds some water.

    2) Apparently we have very different understandings of what “top priority” means. In my world, where I learned English, this means that the “top” would be the number 1 on your list, the most important, the thing that you need more than other things. A thing that is regarded as more important than another is called a “priority”. Hence Pete was that that signing Matt was the most important thing. Matt was very attainable if he was in fact, the top priority. Your argument that Matt shouldn’t have been a top priority is something altogether different, and has nothing to do with my article.

    3) Once again, you didn’t say anything about the fact that Pete says he believes in competition and then names a starter before a competition can take place. His actions are inconsistent with his words. If you have something to say about that, go ahead.

    4) Once again, you missed the point of the article. Who cares about the kicker competition? No one, the point is that you can’t trust what Pete says. If you want to argue that Pete did in fact NOT lie about the kicker competition, I’m all ears, otherwise you’re arguing something that wasn’t referenced in the article.

  • DarinPike

    His name is Tarvaris, not Tavaris.

    As for naming a starter…it is pretty tough to enter camp with uncertainty at QB. The team needs a leader and they didn’t have the time to try to dole out first team reps to both players. They have already seen enough of Whitehurst to know how he would fit with the offense.

    As for refuting your points – how does one refute speculation? Seattle made an offer to Matt back in March. It was a fair offer for one year…Matt wanted more. Seattle didn’t want to be tied to him for that long. Plans change…stating he lied is going a bit far.

    Same with Coutu…speculation is being passed on as fact.

  • DarinPike

    @JerredClouse@Thoder On point three…he signed Miller and named him the starter over Carlson. Should we not criticize that decision as well? What about naming Hawthorne the starter at MLB when there was a rookie that could compete for the position? Lynch came in last year and was immediately the starter. That’s what happens in the NFL – when new guys come in they are placed on the depth chart. Doesn’t mean other people aren’t allowed to compete and take over.

  • JerredClouse

    So what would you call it that he says a competition is going to go on for the rest of preseason, over two weeks, and then 2 days later the whole thing is over. You’re arguing that this isn’t a reason to question the next thing out of Pete’s mouth?

  • JerredClouse

    @DarinPike@Thoder 1) Yes, naming Miller over Carlson does violate his “competition” rule, so yes, that too should be criticized. 2) Hawthorne is a proven starter for the Hawks and a rookie has yet to prove he’s even got the chops for the game. Of course, in a similiar situation last year, it was said that unproven and unplayed Whitehurst would challenge Hasselbeck. So this is different because you have two players that you can’t compare: 1 guy whose lead the team in tackles TWICE, and a guy who hasn’t made a big league tackle. 3) Our run game wasn’t working last year. We were looking for an answer. If we were averaging 150 yards a game on the ground, we wouldn’t have gone looking for Lynch. The guys not getting it done was there chance to prove themselves, Lynch was just the response to the problem.

    I think that we ought to agree to disagree: you think naming a starter at QB was needed, and I think that the preseason gives you time to figure out who that leader ought to be. Thats why you have position battles.

  • Daynlokki

    I understand uncertainty at QB, but the whole reason Tarvaris was named the starter is because Seattle installed the ex-Vikings offensive coordinator and Carroll believe he could run the offense better. Preseason has told us a little differently about that. Whitehurst just seems more poised to me and doesn’t get the “happy feet” that ran Tarvaris out of Minny.