I've been reading over the comments on Football Outsiders and one of the tangents going on is how the Steelers defense stuck to what they always do and the Pats ate them alive. 3-4 Zone Blitz seemingly is good enough to handle a slew of opponents throughout the season but is easily dissected when a good OC, HC et al get to work and draw up a game plan.
It made me think about some of the parallels both in philosophy to the Steelers and the commitment to almosts that the Packers currently inhabit.
1. We stick to our guns regardless of opponent on both sides of the ball. There is limited practice and it is a tall order to get defensive players to be proficient with multiple different coverage looks. There is an upside to this in that players aren't as likely to be tripping over themselves mentally on any given play - the downside is the extreme brittleness both to injury and being outcoached (or in the case of the Rams, facing a talent mismatch that disrupts our offensive gameplan so much).
Tomlin, despite the good he brings to the table as a coach also has his share of "WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?!" moments like any successful coach does.
It is in my estimation that the Seahawks are similar to the Steelers in that having a solid organizational commitment to a way of playing football raises the floor of season success on a per season basis, but inhibits playoff potential because they only know one way to do things and are seemingly unaware or unconcerned by the shortfalls of that.
2. The Packers, have stuck by Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers since 2009. And why shouldn't they? Theyve made the playoffs every single year! They won a SB! Theyve been to 3 conference championships! As an outside observer its easy to pinpoint some of McCarthy's weaknesses as a coach. Also the Packers team building is decidedly different than ours but the results are similar. Consistently making playoffs and letting fate run its course. It seems like a very passive way of approaching things but again - they consistently make the playoffs so whos to argue, right?
The way I see it, teams like the Packers, Steelers and yes, even us, have fulfilled a baseline quota for success. It means we have identified some key components to sustained competitive football in the regular season, have key talent that allows them to stay committed to their way of playing football and do a lot of things better than the rest of the league and make the playoffs regularly.
As a thought experiment, if you were a fan of either the Packers or Steelers (perish the thought), would you be making noise to shake the coaching tree a bit? If not, how much of your rationale would apply to Pete Carroll et al? If so, are you refraining from applying that rationale to PC et al? At what point would you hold PC et al to greater standard than McCarthy and Tomlin? Would you be happy if the Seahawks echoed the Packers success?
I think it can be informative to view our issues with potential stagnation by seeing how other teams in a similar position are dealing with it (or not dealing with it).
It made me think about some of the parallels both in philosophy to the Steelers and the commitment to almosts that the Packers currently inhabit.
1. We stick to our guns regardless of opponent on both sides of the ball. There is limited practice and it is a tall order to get defensive players to be proficient with multiple different coverage looks. There is an upside to this in that players aren't as likely to be tripping over themselves mentally on any given play - the downside is the extreme brittleness both to injury and being outcoached (or in the case of the Rams, facing a talent mismatch that disrupts our offensive gameplan so much).
Tomlin, despite the good he brings to the table as a coach also has his share of "WTF ARE YOU DOING?!?!" moments like any successful coach does.
It is in my estimation that the Seahawks are similar to the Steelers in that having a solid organizational commitment to a way of playing football raises the floor of season success on a per season basis, but inhibits playoff potential because they only know one way to do things and are seemingly unaware or unconcerned by the shortfalls of that.
2. The Packers, have stuck by Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers since 2009. And why shouldn't they? Theyve made the playoffs every single year! They won a SB! Theyve been to 3 conference championships! As an outside observer its easy to pinpoint some of McCarthy's weaknesses as a coach. Also the Packers team building is decidedly different than ours but the results are similar. Consistently making playoffs and letting fate run its course. It seems like a very passive way of approaching things but again - they consistently make the playoffs so whos to argue, right?
The way I see it, teams like the Packers, Steelers and yes, even us, have fulfilled a baseline quota for success. It means we have identified some key components to sustained competitive football in the regular season, have key talent that allows them to stay committed to their way of playing football and do a lot of things better than the rest of the league and make the playoffs regularly.
As a thought experiment, if you were a fan of either the Packers or Steelers (perish the thought), would you be making noise to shake the coaching tree a bit? If not, how much of your rationale would apply to Pete Carroll et al? If so, are you refraining from applying that rationale to PC et al? At what point would you hold PC et al to greater standard than McCarthy and Tomlin? Would you be happy if the Seahawks echoed the Packers success?
I think it can be informative to view our issues with potential stagnation by seeing how other teams in a similar position are dealing with it (or not dealing with it).