Is there a single player who is still available and we can afford who you would say, “Now we are a contender” or “Super Bowl or bust”.

I think we would need more than one. So no. We are not a contender this coming season. Russ will light it up for 6-8 weeks then we will be one and done in the playoffs. Unless we have a top 5 running game and D this is what will happen every year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sherman would be the closest thing, assuming his play doesn't decline this upcoming season. Need another guy at corner.

No, but I think AB, Sherman, or Mitchell Schwartz would help tremendously. Geno Atkins is coming off a poor year, but I'd be willing to give him a look too.

Playing the way Carroll likes to play?

Probably Clowney.

Obviously, if we massively upgrade the line we would be contenders too but that would require more than one player.

Even a great CB won't fix the problems we have now, but decent corners and a much better DL line might. We might have that or be close on that now.

Clowney isn't a great fit most places but he is stellar here, because he is one of the better guys against the run and tends to blow up plays. He also shows out a bit for us in the playoffs.

We would be an easy dark horse contender with Clowney and probably do well in any playoff game we did not have to play the Rams in.

TwistedHusky wrote:Playing the way Carroll likes to play?

Probably Clowney.

Obviously, if we massively upgrade the line we would be contenders too but that would require more than one player.

Even a great CB won't fix the problems we have now, but decent corners and a much better DL line might. We might have that or be close on that now.

Clowney isn't a great fit most places but he is stellar here, because he is one of the better guys against the run and tends to blow up plays. He also shows out a bit for us in the playoffs.

We would be an easy dark horse contender with Clowney and probably do well in any playoff game we did not have to play the Rams in.

I like Clowney, but that doesn't feel like a signing we NEED to make any more. I feel like the money is better spent elsewhere, but I wouldn't complain at all if we did go that direction anyway.

Clowney, Tate, & Sherman.

Draft a starting Center.

HawkinNY wrote:I think we would need more than one. So no. We are not a contender this coming season. Russ will light it up for 6-8 weeks then we will be one and done in the playoffs. Unless we have a top 5 running game and D this is what will happen every year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol he only has 6- 8 good games every year..NOT

We can be if we play the right system and stick with it.

No

HawkinNY wrote:I think we would need more than one. So no. We are not a contender this coming season. Russ will light it up for 6-8 weeks then we will be one and done in the playoffs. Unless we have a top 5 running game and D this is what will happen every year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is a 12-4 team that arguably improved (at worst stayed the same) not even a contender??

This place is straight weird at times

To be a contender you have to be a threat in the playoffs.

And some of our 12-4 last year (and likely the division win) was due to one of the best, if not the best, team in the division blowing a tire (or all 4 tires) midway through the season last year. That likely won't happen again, unless maybe if they roll with a rookie QB.

To be a contender we need 2 things to happen:

1 - We have to miss/avoid the Rams in the playoffs entirely. Any head-to-head matchup is a loss.

2 - We have to play better defense in the playoffs or focus more on offense in the playoffs.

#1 is just luck. The latter part of #2 is not going to happen, so the only option is build up our defense.

Last year our run defense was spotty. Good at times, but completely inconsistent for the most part. Clowney is a great defender against the run, especially backside pursuit. And he is amazing at blowing up run plays in the backfield. Finally, while not an A+ pass rusher, he is streaky and has a small history of being great in the playoffs for us.

If we fixed the DL with him, to at least close up the run weakness and shore up the pass rush - we would stand a puncher's chance. Otherwise, we have no shot. (not really true, if we actually got rid of Pete Ball we could be a force in the playoffs, but we won't so it does not matter what we 'could' do.

There are plenty of great players that would make this team so much better, but they are not available. The only one that looks somewhat available and would have this impact is Clowney. We probably could not afford him, but with him, we could be dangerous in the playoffs (as long as we missed the Rams.)

Pete might actually be too conservative and old at this point to win in the playoffs past the wildcard game anyway but if there is an option, it would require someone like Clowney to fix that DL.

This place IS just weird at times.

Any game vs the Rams is an automatic loss? We split our games with them in the regular season last year. Theyve lost 2/5ths of their secondary. That playoff loss really stung. But man, it was one game. We played basically the same schedule as the Rams last year and had a better record. We have a different OC coming in.

If youre a player, yes, at this point you tell yourself its the playoffs that matter. As a fan, to discount 12-4 and winning the West because of a playoff loss is not appreciate what youve got.


As far as the 49ers.. we will see. They will bring in a rookie QB ..which means there is a 60% chance hes good.. or they start Garoppolo who hasnt shown to be consistent or the picture of health.

Weve improved out O line, brought back Carson, upgraded our TE, and have a new coordinator.

Our D line is the best its been since the Super Bowl years, we have maybe the best LB corps there is (I believe KJ will be back, and Brooks will continue to develop), and we have 2 Pro Bowl DBs.


Pro Bowl (in the old meaning, not the popularity contest meaning) type players:

Offense:

Duane Brown
Russel Wilson
Chris Carson
Lockett
DK Metcalf

Defense:

Dunlop
Bobby Wagner
KJ Wright
Diggs
Adams


So.. nearly half the squad on both sides of the ball..plus our punter.

You cant be that good and NOT be a contender.

This place is weird?

We lost to a Rams team with 1/2 a QB and not even using their stud DT for 1/2 the game.

We beat the Rams in the regular season. Yay. By one point. Then the Rams came back and curb-stomped us in the next game. When we beat the Rams, it is usually by the slimmest of margins. But they have no problems pounding us into the turf and generally embarrassing us.

Do you remember everything we needed to beat the Rams the year before? At home?

Yes, occasionally we can squeak out wins here and there in the regular season against the Rams.

But Carroll turtles up in the playoffs.

So splitting in the regular season is super fun and all... but if we ratchet ourselves down against a team we struggle with anyway? Then we are pretty much screwed. We struggle against the Rams.

No, we cannot beat the Rams in the playoffs. We literally lost to the Rams in the playoffs with 1/2 a QB and not even using their top DT for half the game! It must have been hilarious for anyone that is not a Seahawk fan to watch, but for us Seahawk fans it was a regular reminder we want no part of the Rams in any playoff game.
(BTW the Rams knew this, that is why the Rams players were saying BEFORE THE GAME that their whole plan was to face the Seahawks in the playoffs. That was literally a goal for the season because they knew we were a free pass to the next game if they got us....and they were right.)






Psst....we had all those players you listed above against the Rams in the playoff game AT HOME and somehow lost to a team with no QB. Never underestimate Carroll's ability to underproduce on offense in the playoffs until it is too late. And until he stops that (unless he has 5 HOF players on his defense), we aren't contenders without another field tilter on this team. Not even sure if that will be enough to offset Carroll but it might.

TwistedHusky wrote:To be a contender you have to be a threat in the playoffs.

And some of our 12-4 last year (and likely the division win) was due to one of the best, if not the best, team in the division blowing a tire (or all 4 tires) midway through the season last year. That likely won't happen again, unless maybe if they roll with a rookie QB.

To be a contender we need 2 things to happen:

1 - We have to miss/avoid the Rams in the playoffs entirely. Any head-to-head matchup is a loss.

2 - We have to play better defense in the playoffs or focus more on offense in the playoffs.

#1 is just luck. The latter part of #2 is not going to happen, so the only option is build up our defense.

Last year our run defense was spotty. Good at times, but completely inconsistent for the most part. Clowney is a great defender against the run, especially backside pursuit. And he is amazing at blowing up run plays in the backfield. Finally, while not an A+ pass rusher, he is streaky and has a small history of being great in the playoffs for us.

If we fixed the DL with him, to at least close up the run weakness and shore up the pass rush - we would stand a puncher's chance. Otherwise, we have no shot. (not really true, if we actually got rid of Pete Ball we could be a force in the playoffs, but we won't so it does not matter what we 'could' do.

There are plenty of great players that would make this team so much better, but they are not available. The only one that looks somewhat available and would have this impact is Clowney. We probably could not afford him, but with him, we could be dangerous in the playoffs (as long as we missed the Rams.)

Pete might actually be too conservative and old at this point to win in the playoffs past the wildcard game anyway but if there is an option, it would require someone like Clowney to fix that DL.

Dont forget that we don't play the AFC and NFC Easts like last year, which had a combined one good team out of 8.

People still being fooled by that 12-4 record.

Need a pass rusher like Jason Pierre Paul caliber which isn’t out there. Also Sherman at 75% what he was and a center and another OL stud because the line still isn’t very good. We won’t be contenders with PC regardless, but a couple playoff wins would be amazing.

Sign Geno Atkins or Kawann Short. This would significantly upgrade the interior DL and create pressure from there. That will make the secondary better. They have improved the edges but they needed help on interior when Reed was here, even more so now that he's gone. Woods is a solid addition but he's not enough (as pass rush is not his strength).

pittpnthrs wrote:People still being fooled by that 12-4 record.

The Seahawks have primarily been between 10-6 and 13-3 under Russ/Pete

Thats not being fooled. 12 wins wasnt a fluke. This is a double digit win team, and double digit win teams are contenders.

Now are they favorites? Probably not currently unless they can show they can get over their recent playoff struggles

But contenders? Absolutely

The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

hawkfan68 wrote:Sign Geno Atkins or Kawann Short. This would significantly upgrade the interior DL and create pressure from there. That will make the secondary better. They have improved the edges but they needed help on interior when Reed was here, even more so now that he's gone. Woods is a solid addition but he's not enough (as pass rush is not his strength).

^ This would be my thought as well. At the right price either would be a positive in our DT rotation.

Maelstrom787 wrote:Sherman would be the closest thing, assuming his play doesn't decline this upcoming season. Need another guy at corner.

I would like to see Sherman back as well. A savy veteran who knows our system can still contribute with more than just his play. His presence, swagger and confidence would be very helpful with our younger DB's like a coach on the field. He needs to come back and retire as a Seahawk. I hope this happens.

A contender is a team that could contend for the title. By definition.

It is not a team with a great regular-season record, with tons of wins against great teams in the regular season that will never win anything in the playoffs. That was the Atlanta Hawks, and now the Seattle Seahawks since our SB loss.

Carroll will never understand that it is better to have a worse record going into the playoffs and be a team better prepared to do well in the playoffs vs the opposite. So, with Carroll's proclivities, it will be hard for one player to make a difference.

Sherman is not going to be that player. Of the guys available, Atkins or Short might help. But best chance would be Clowney, because he can almost win one playoff game for you near by himself. Not sure the others available can.

Our record is going to be inflated playing against weaker teams this year. But going into the playoffs that will hardly matter once we start playing good teams. It will be fun while it lasts though. But until this team can actually win a divisional playoff game, and it isn't clear that Carroll is even capable of this anymore, we are not contenders.

It would not matter if we were 16-0 at some point (unlikely to happen with the Rams on our schedule anyway), we still are not contenders when we lose to whatever divisional opponent we end up against.

Can this team contend for a SB and have a realistic chance of going? Probably not. Because the way we like to play does not work in the playoffs, even if it works in the regular season.

So you have to have wildcards. Wildcards are guys like Kam, Adams, Clowney, etc. These are the guys that can tilt the field no matter how bad your gameplan. Sherman in his prime was a wildcard but I don't think he is anymore.

TwistedHusky wrote:A contender is a team that could contend for the title. By definition.

It is not a team with a great regular-season record, with tons of wins against great teams in the regular season that will never win anything in the playoffs. That was the Atlanta Hawks, and now the Seattle Seahawks since our SB loss.

Carroll will never understand that it is better to have a worse record going into the playoffs and be a team better prepared to do well in the playoffs vs the opposite. So, with Carroll's proclivities, it will be hard for one player to make a difference.

Sherman is not going to be that player. Of the guys available, Atkins or Short might help. But best chance would be Clowney, because he can almost win one playoff game for you near by himself. Not sure the others available can.

Our record is going to be inflated playing against weaker teams this year. But going into the playoffs that will hardly matter once we start playing good teams. It will be fun while it lasts though. But until this team can actually win a divisional playoff game, and it isn't clear that Carroll is even capable of this anymore, we are not contenders.

It would not matter if we were 16-0 at some point (unlikely to happen with the Rams on our schedule anyway), we still are not contenders when we lose to whatever divisional opponent we end up against.

Can this team contend for a SB and have a realistic chance of going? Probably not. Because the way we like to play does not work in the playoffs, even if it works in the regular season.

So you have to have wildcards. Wildcards are guys like Kam, Adams, Clowney, etc. These are the guys that can tilt the field no matter how bad your gameplan. Sherman in his prime was a wildcard but I don't think he is anymore.

I don't think Clowney is either at this stage, agree with Sherman, he is more a situational player coach now, Clowney if sound can play, but he is rarely sound, he is just inbetween the next IR assignment.

Clowney is the only real answer here. And he would definitely fill a need - at SAM.

I keep bringing this up - the Seahawks are running Bear fronts as a base defense now. The SAM is right up on the line in a wide-9. The SAM ideally can a) consistently hold the edge, especially against TEs, b) be a pass rush threat, and c) cover, especially in the flat. They wanted Bruce Irvin for the role because he has the size, athleticism, and rush ability. KJ ended up playing very well there, but he’s not a pass rusher. Clowney could play the SAM on mixed downs, and slide inside to 3-tech on passing downs. Our front-7/8 would be dominant.

CB, C, and WR are also needs but in FA Clowney is the real difference maker still out there.

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Hawkpower wrote:

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Yes with Wilson his playoff record is right up there. Without its under .500

John63 wrote:

Hawkpower wrote:

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Yes with Wilson his playoff record is right up there. Without its under .500

You can do this many ways. What's Wilson's playoff record without the LOB?

Hawkpower wrote:

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Yes but those hits are mostly in a three year period, what has happened the other 7 years.

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Coryell?

Hawkpower wrote:

pittpnthrs wrote:People still being fooled by that 12-4 record.

The Seahawks have primarily been between 10-6 and 13-3 under Russ/Pete

Thats not being fooled. 12 wins wasnt a fluke. This is a double digit win team, and double digit win teams are contenders.

Now are they favorites? Probably not currently unless they can show they can get over their recent playoff struggles

But contenders? Absolutely

There is such a thing as the eye test. I watched every single game Seattle played last season and had no preconceived notions that they would do anything in the playoffs. Thinking otherwise is being fooled by their regular season record. They played an extremely easy schedule and barely beat anybody over .500. They are pretenders, not contenders.

Hawkpower wrote:Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Come on, you should be better than this. 2013 and 2014 Seattle had a legendary defense that was better than everybody else talent wise. There were no adjustments being made with them. None were needed. 2015 might be the best example ever of Pete not being able to adjust. After barely squeaking by the Vikings due to a missed chip shot of a field goal, Seattle then faced the Panthers and proceeded to take the entire first half off basically losing the game there. If Rivera hadent taken his foot off the gas in the second half, that game would probably be the ugliest loss of Carrolls career.

Its been 7 years now of poor playoff performances and it doesnt look like anything is going to change anytime soon.

pittpnthrs wrote:2015 might be the best example ever of Pete not being able to adjust. After barely squeaking by the Vikings due to a missed chip shot of a field goal, Seattle then faced the Panthers and proceeded to take the entire first half off basically losing the game there. If Rivera hadent taken his foot off the gas in the second half, that game would probably be the ugliest loss of Carrolls career.

A very interesting takeaway from this game.

Carroll is to blame for the footing problems that we had. As the one in charge of the organization, he hired the equipment manager that dropped the ball on the spikes that cost us the ability to plant and cut normally on bad field conditions.

Carroll is responsible for signing off on the offensive line signings in the offseason that were being beaten horribly, though expecting a journeyman backup center to handle Short and Lotulelei was our death sentence in that game (maybe he could have traded for a starting center after Nowak was injured, but what do we give up for a starting center in season when the team we are trading for can see that we are desperate).

Carroll was responsible for bringing back Darrell Bevell whose play calls were not very good.

Carroll was not responsible for either of the interceptions that Wilson gifted the Panthers.

Carroll was not responsible for the injury to Okung that created the second interception.

Carroll was not responsible for the best defense in the NFL finally having an offensive coordinator that came up with a game plan that was tailor made to beat that defense.

Carroll was not responsible for the defense not getting pressure on Newton.

Carroll could have curbed the defensive players pointing fingers on the sideline during the game, but we know now that a lot of those defensive players blamed Carroll for the Super Bowl loss and probably would not have listened to him.

Carroll was not responsible for the Panthers being a better team that season.

pinksheets wrote:

John63 wrote:

Hawkpower wrote:

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Yes with Wilson his playoff record is right up there. Without its under .500

You can do this many ways. What's Wilson's playoff record without the LOB?

Better than PCs without the LOB. Which is my point.

FYI he had the LOB and Lynch in 2011 no playoffs.

Wilson comes playoffs every year but 1 and even the years were there was no Lynch or LOB.

If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

3 wins in 6 years in the playoffs means we are not contenders under PC no matter who is on our team. PC needs to so overtalent the opposition for his stupid game plans to work and that’s not us anymore. It is all about the playoffs and for 6 straight years there PC is more or less a complete failure.

Seems like there is a conflict in assumed definitions at work in this thread.

And, maybe a lack of distinction between the competitive season and the sudden death tournament that comes after completion of the season.

Some views may even be devoid of any appreciation or joy in watching player development during the season. As well as a blindness to team communications developing over the course of a season.

notyou wrote:

chris98251 wrote:The teams Knox coached were almost always contenders, the teams that Coryell coached were almost always contenders. Knox does what Pete does, turtle shells in the playoffs. Coryell's teams rarely had a defense that could make a team one dimensional and would always try to out score them. Both coaches won a lot of regular season games and ended up in the playoffs. Once there Other playoff teams could take away something and the two coches either would not or could not make the adjustments needed. Knox trusting his QB and WR's when the run was taken away and Coryell giving up some of the all stars on offense for a defense to compete in the Playoffs.

You could add Bud Grant as well, he had great defenses and usually a good passing game with Tarkenton, Foreman was his Back, he was a great receiver as well, but not a back that could pound for yards when needed most.

Vikings came close like 5 times, Bills just could not get it done by bad luck with Kickers to win games, I didn't add them.

Coryell?

You obviously don't remember or were born when he coached the Cardinals with Jim Hart and Terry Metcalf, Mel Gray and then the Chargers with more Pro Bowlers then can remember to list, Dan Fouts, John Jefferson, Kellen Winslow to name a few.

Jville wrote:If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

Lets see, Analytics, Cleveland tried that and it got a whole staff fired and front office reshuffle.

Oakland A's used it and had some success, but how many world series did they have?

Boston then tried it and had some success also, but hey they are not winners every year either.

Stats are a reference to the success of the system, the Coaches still put players in them, the players have to perform to that system, My eyeballs can see if they are not, my eyeballs can see that if a team takes away the running game you should be passing, my eyes see that if you go two deep you should run and use intermediate routes.

Your analytics just show player failure.

John63 wrote:

pinksheets wrote:

John63 wrote:

Hawkpower wrote:

Pete can't make adjustments or win in the playoffs?

Man 2013/2014/2015 must have been a replacement coach who looked just like him then.

You guys do realize Pete's playoff record is right there with almost all of his peers right?

You guys are better than this. You're good fans who know better than to overreact to the last few seasons with oversweeping generalizations to try and hammer home a narrative.

Yes with Wilson his playoff record is right up there. Without its under .500

You can do this many ways. What's Wilson's playoff record without the LOB?

Better than PCs without the LOB. Which is my point.

FYI he had the LOB and Lynch in 2011 no playoffs.

Wilson comes playoffs every year but 1 and even the years were there was no Lynch or LOB.

Hasn't done anything of meaning without them in the playoffs, though.

The point is - this is a dumb line of critique. "A head coach will struggle to consistently win in the playoffs without a decent or better qb" - wow, intriguing. Winning in the playoffs is hard to do without a lot of things coming together. Pete and Russ both need more than they can offer on their own individually.

Jville wrote:If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

Whats wrong with the eye test? Watching a team every week gives a person a strong indication of how good that team truly is. Again, the 12-4 was a paper record that wasnt a true outlier of the teams talent. I ask once again, how many teams above .500 did they beat? Wins accumulated with that creampuff schedule fooled people into the false belief that the team was better than they really were. By just watching the team, one should have known they were going to get thumped in the postseason, and they did. I guess some refuse to accept the obvious though. Worse than that, some might be unable to see the obvious.

pittpnthrs wrote:

Jville wrote:If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

Whats wrong with the eye test? Watching a team every week gives a person a strong indication of how good that team truly is. Again, the 12-4 was a paper record that wasnt a true outlier of the teams talent. I ask once again, how many teams above .500 did they beat? Wins accumulated with that creampuff schedule fooled people into the false belief that the team was better than they really were. By just watching the team, one should have known they were going to get thumped in the postseason, and they did. I guess some refuse to accept the obvious though. Worse than that, some might be unable to see the obvious.

Yes, it was very easy to see that Russell Wilson had checked out the last month of the season except for against a pathetic New York team at home after feeling he could just show up against another pathetic New York team and getting smacked around. When your quarterback has checked out, your team will fail especially in the playoffs.

BASF wrote:

pittpnthrs wrote:

Jville wrote:If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

Whats wrong with the eye test? Watching a team every week gives a person a strong indication of how good that team truly is. Again, the 12-4 was a paper record that wasnt a true outlier of the teams talent. I ask once again, how many teams above .500 did they beat? Wins accumulated with that creampuff schedule fooled people into the false belief that the team was better than they really were. By just watching the team, one should have known they were going to get thumped in the postseason, and they did. I guess some refuse to accept the obvious though. Worse than that, some might be unable to see the obvious.

Yes, it was very easy to see that Russell Wilson had checked out the last month of the season except for against a pathetic New York team at home after feeling he could just show up against another pathetic New York team and getting smacked around. When your quarterback has checked out, your team will fail especially in the playoffs.

Pete Ball will do that to a person. Sucks the soul right out of you.

pittpnthrs wrote:

BASF wrote:

pittpnthrs wrote:

Jville wrote:If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

Whats wrong with the eye test? Watching a team every week gives a person a strong indication of how good that team truly is. Again, the 12-4 was a paper record that wasnt a true outlier of the teams talent. I ask once again, how many teams above .500 did they beat? Wins accumulated with that creampuff schedule fooled people into the false belief that the team was better than they really were. By just watching the team, one should have known they were going to get thumped in the postseason, and they did. I guess some refuse to accept the obvious though. Worse than that, some might be unable to see the obvious.

Yes, it was very easy to see that Russell Wilson had checked out the last month of the season except for against a pathetic New York team at home after feeling he could just show up against another pathetic New York team and getting smacked around. When your quarterback has checked out, your team will fail especially in the playoffs.

Pete Ball will do that to a person. Sucks the soul right out of you.

Yup and it was not just Wilson, DK, Lockett, Brown and others you could see it in their demeanor.

But lets keep in mind the last moth was far form garbage

Wilson was 65% complt, 8 tds to only 2 ints so 4/1 td/int, 95 qb rating Far from bad. But I agree not the same part might be what we now know was getting dismissed by PC, part might be the sacks catching up to him,

pittpnthrs wrote:People still being fooled by that 12-4 record.

Are they being fooled by the outcome of 16 coin flips, or are you being fooled by the outcome of one coin flip?

pittpnthrs wrote:

BASF wrote:

pittpnthrs wrote:

Jville wrote:If there were a separate comment section like we see in blogs, the following would surely be included ...
..............................................................................................................................................................................


Did you read the post that resorted to using the old "eyeball test" ploy? Who buys into that one anymore? Optimists, Pessimists and Defeatist all see the world thru different lenses and not surprisingly arrive at different outlooks.


Then there is a denial of success statement that reads "People still being fooled by that 12-4 record" .... Priceless

Forum posts may not be as cute as the old Art Linkletter Show ..... but many often say the darndest things. Comic Relief.

Whats wrong with the eye test? Watching a team every week gives a person a strong indication of how good that team truly is. Again, the 12-4 was a paper record that wasnt a true outlier of the teams talent. I ask once again, how many teams above .500 did they beat? Wins accumulated with that creampuff schedule fooled people into the false belief that the team was better than they really were. By just watching the team, one should have known they were going to get thumped in the postseason, and they did. I guess some refuse to accept the obvious though. Worse than that, some might be unable to see the obvious.

Yes, it was very easy to see that Russell Wilson had checked out the last month of the season except for against a pathetic New York team at home after feeling he could just show up against another pathetic New York team and getting smacked around. When your quarterback has checked out, your team will fail especially in the playoffs.

Pete Ball will do that to a person. Sucks the soul right out of you.

Define Peteball

BASF wrote:

pittpnthrs wrote:

BASF wrote:

pittpnthrs wrote:
Whats wrong with the eye test? Watching a team every week gives a person a strong indication of how good that team truly is. Again, the 12-4 was a paper record that wasnt a true outlier of the teams talent. I ask once again, how many teams above .500 did they beat? Wins accumulated with that creampuff schedule fooled people into the false belief that the team was better than they really were. By just watching the team, one should have known they were going to get thumped in the postseason, and they did. I guess some refuse to accept the obvious though. Worse than that, some might be unable to see the obvious.

Yes, it was very easy to see that Russell Wilson had checked out the last month of the season except for against a pathetic New York team at home after feeling he could just show up against another pathetic New York team and getting smacked around. When your quarterback has checked out, your team will fail especially in the playoffs.

Pete Ball will do that to a person. Sucks the soul right out of you.

Define Peteball

That requires special lenses ......... perhaps double secret lenses to see.

Safe, conservative on offense for 3 quarters, bend but don't break on defense playing off and deep to not get a momentum play against you but give up a ton of yards in the air.

chris98251 wrote:Safe, conservative on offense for 3 quarters.

Far too broad. That could describe the offense Brady runs with his quick passes which is as far from what we run as you can get.