Seattle had a lot of veteran players that Carroll chose not to keep. The Rams had rookies and second year players aside from Laurinaitis and Long. It's not comparable.
Seattle had proven starters like Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch, Burleson, Carlson, Tatupu, LeRoy Hill, Mebane, Deon Grant, Kerney, Sims and Trufant.(not including young players like Bryant, Unger, Hawthorne, etc.) It was a much more talented team than the 2011 Rams. Carroll chose to rebuild with guys that fit his system...and him/Schneider did a great job of it.
But it's not a contest between who inherited the better team. Fisher's coaching staff developed Quinn, Bradford and Saffold. Bradford and Saffold were coming off terrible sophomore years and injuries. You're not taking a starting QB and a DPOY over anything. Because Quinn and Bradford have become what they are with the coaching they received from Fisher's staff.
And regardless of all that, Carroll went 14-18 in a MUCH WEAKER NFC West. Fisher went 14-17-1. The whole "it's results time" argument just seems bogus to me. It's always "results time" and yet "results" are a lot more complicated that simple wins and losses. What happens if Bradford gets hurt again or other key players are injured? Did Fisher fail if the team only wins 8 games? What happens if we play the toughest schedule in football and only win 8-9 games? What happens if the team wins 10 games and doesn't make the playoffs because of the strength of the NFC?
Frankly, this team going 14-17-1 with the talent and luck it has had over the past two years, imo, is a testament to how good of a job Fisher's staff has done.(aside from Walton)