Does ANYONE Really Enjoy Reading Steve Kelley?

I certainly do not. Let's take a look at his article on the possibility of the Seahawks hiring Pete Carroll, before it became reality.

This mindless rant chronicles, in Kelley's mind, how awful the Pete Carroll hire would potentially be if the Seahawks chose to go in that direction (they did). Here are my favorite excepts from that Seattle Times article, which can be found in its entirety here - Picking Pete Carroll would make bad situation worse:


"Pete Carroll? Really? Is that all the Seahawks have for their beleaguered fans?

Pete Carroll? The guy who lasted one season with the New York Jets and finished 6-10? The guy who was fired after three seasons as the coach of the Patriots?

Pete Carroll? Isn't he a college coach? A rah-rah guy? The ace recruiter, who stacked his USC rosters with two of everything, like a modern day Noah?

Pete Carroll? Is that the Seahawks' best answer for these past two losing seasons?

Pete Carroll? Are the Hawks really making him president as well as coach? Giving him Holmgren-like powers, more power than Carroll's had in any job ever? Based on what NFL track record, exactly?

Pete Carroll? Are the Seahawks serious? Isn't this just another in a series of ham-handed moves by this once-proud franchise?

Is Pete Carroll the best solution for a better Seahawks tomorrow?

Pete Carroll?"

Now, I like a rant every now and then as much as the next guy, but Kelley's article produces very little in the way of a convincing argument and instead relies solely on his repetitious use of Pete Carroll's name. He is quick to cite Carroll's past NFL track record as a negative (33-31), yet glosses over his astounding college coaching record (97–19).

This is so clearly an article written by a man with a simple dislike for an individual (Pete Carroll) or a decision (hiring a high profile college head coach to be the head coach of an NFL franchise), but what it is NOT is a level-headed argument based on the facts.

Finally, here is my favorite part:

"Now the Seahawks' decision-makers appear to be going for the glitter. They've got stars in their eyes. They are blinded by Carroll's college success, forgetting how poorly he did as an NFL head coach."

Steve, he was 33-31, which if I'm not mistaken, isn't awful for a first time head coach in the NFL. This time around, Carroll has a track record of success at USC, and also his experience from his first NFL stint to guide him in his new position.

I think Carroll sums it up best himself:

"I was not at my best in New York. I can't tell you how far away I was then. I was not at my best in New England. I think the Seahawks have benefited from the fact of what I've been through."


Steve Kelley?

Really? The guy who writes meaningless opinion pieces with no substantiated evidence for his claims and assertions?

Really Seattle Times? Steve Kelley?


[Steve Kelley is a Seattle Times Sports columnist]