utahphinsfan
Club Member
I don't disagree. Martz's philosophy in St L did not exactly spawn a dynasty either. Then, if any team is famous for being really good for 3 or 4 yrs every 2 decades; its the Rams.
Trenches and Defense not QB and firepower
- Thread starter realdolphin
- Start date
I don't disagree. Martz's philosophy in St L did not exactly spawn a dynasty either. Then, if any team is famous for being really good for 3 or 4 yrs every 2 decades; its the Rams.
utahphinsfan
Club Member
Seattle does not reek of tuna or meatball. It kind of reminds me of a hybrid between the Redskins during Gibbs' 1st tenure & the Ravens 1st title.
flynryan15
Club Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,120
- Reaction score
- 1,898
I posted at the beginning of the season a ESPN article about the new way Pete Carroll was doing things in Seattle and I got flammed for it! Well it works and they have a young dynasty.
They are also one of the best drafting teams in the league....what will kill them is when it is FA time and they need money to sign all those guys in a few years...
dlockz
Hall Of Famer
Well way too early to call them a dynasty but they should be good again next year
BahamaFinFan78
Active Roster
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,577
- Reaction score
- 7,750
Several things have made Seattle successful:
1. Cheap, effective QB play-if they are paying Wilson a larger salary, they cannot add Avril and Harvin. Look at Baltimore last year. We really must win while Tannehill is cheap otherwise he becomes too expensive to afford other parts.
2. Physical play everywhere-they play smashmouth, they wear you down, eventually the "Beast" is going to break one loose or you can't cover the receivers, their DB's are hitting the WR's all the time (they don't care if they get a few penalties), they push smaller O-lines around. By the 4th quarter, you are sore and hurting from going up against them for 45 minutes
3. Consistent coaching-Carroll came in with a plan and has not deviated from the plan. He also has not had to worry about job security. They draft players to fit their plan; remember Carroll not taking some of his USC players in the draft.
4. Good, young players-Get great production from your draft picks and over-turn the older veterans on your roster when they are past their prime.
1. Cheap, effective QB play-if they are paying Wilson a larger salary, they cannot add Avril and Harvin. Look at Baltimore last year. We really must win while Tannehill is cheap otherwise he becomes too expensive to afford other parts.
2. Physical play everywhere-they play smashmouth, they wear you down, eventually the "Beast" is going to break one loose or you can't cover the receivers, their DB's are hitting the WR's all the time (they don't care if they get a few penalties), they push smaller O-lines around. By the 4th quarter, you are sore and hurting from going up against them for 45 minutes
3. Consistent coaching-Carroll came in with a plan and has not deviated from the plan. He also has not had to worry about job security. They draft players to fit their plan; remember Carroll not taking some of his USC players in the draft.
4. Good, young players-Get great production from your draft picks and over-turn the older veterans on your roster when they are past their prime.
Sherif
Pro Bowler
I think Denver's OC laid a big fat egg and got out coached. The Seattle DC made it look like they were playing with 3 more players on Defense. Every one of their players won head to head match ups and did not bite one bit on screen pass or play action and maintained their containment and area of the field. Their players knew their assignment and performed it flawlessly. It didn't help that Denver played too close to the LOS never loosing up the Seattle D. A better coach like Shula would have exploited Seattle's zone defensive scheme against them. The Denver receivers ran routes rather than finding the soft spots in the zone and sitting. Manning was also very rattled and he had more time than he thought he did. Not taking away anything from the Seattle D players, but that was one flawless defensive game plan and their players know the fundamentals of tackling, swarming to the ball and playing 100% every play till the whistle sounds. I also loved that they didn't sit on any lead on offense. Denver just got out coached and that led to them getting outplayed and I'm Not sure if I'm the only one that feels that way.
I've said all season, that watching a team like Seattle who runs a similar offense to ours makes me jealous. Now this is not a bash Sherman post (though it will sound like it), but Darrelle Bevell and his offensive assistants just did a great job of making little adjustments in the scheme. Outside of Russell Okung and Max Unger, the Seahawks aren't the best OL, they rotated a lot of players. But it was minor adjustments in protection that helped out.
Or look at all the rub plays, quick ways they got Harvin the ball. Kearse and Baldwin are not anything to write home about as receivers, but they're smart and sure handed, and the playcalling found ways to get them open.
I feel that was missing... that and a competent run game. Some of that is on the OL, some of that is on playcalling, and some of that is on the RBs.
And as Truth said, the way Seattle's GM and Carroll work together is something that was sorely missing. Philbin and Ireland were just too far apart on what type of players they wanted in the draft. We don't know all the facts about who wanted who, but the one thing that was clear is that they didn't work well together. I'm convinced that AJ Smith and Marty Schottenheimer's inability to work together cost the Chargers at least one Super Bowl.
Philbin's "finesse" philosophy isn't a bad one and even that is a bit misguided. The idea is to have an athletic OL. Seattle's OL is full of guys who can move. The difference is they have a violent runner in Marshawn Lynch. The issue, again, was that we had a coach and his staff speaking French and the GM thinking Spanish.
Or look at all the rub plays, quick ways they got Harvin the ball. Kearse and Baldwin are not anything to write home about as receivers, but they're smart and sure handed, and the playcalling found ways to get them open.
I feel that was missing... that and a competent run game. Some of that is on the OL, some of that is on playcalling, and some of that is on the RBs.
And as Truth said, the way Seattle's GM and Carroll work together is something that was sorely missing. Philbin and Ireland were just too far apart on what type of players they wanted in the draft. We don't know all the facts about who wanted who, but the one thing that was clear is that they didn't work well together. I'm convinced that AJ Smith and Marty Schottenheimer's inability to work together cost the Chargers at least one Super Bowl.
Philbin's "finesse" philosophy isn't a bad one and even that is a bit misguided. The idea is to have an athletic OL. Seattle's OL is full of guys who can move. The difference is they have a violent runner in Marshawn Lynch. The issue, again, was that we had a coach and his staff speaking French and the GM thinking Spanish.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 9,631
- Reaction score
- 3,014
How many of you people here on FH advocated keeping Parcells way in place? Building through the draft. Building from the inside out? Being more physical than the man in front of you?
I would venture to say damn near 99.99999% of this board was of the thought that Parcells way was a ancient and archaic way of doing things. Carrol who has a history with Parcells, built his team in a classic Parcells mold. BB reverted back to a power run game in the 2nd half of this season. SF and Balt are two other teams built from the inside out. But this franchise and its fan base wanted a more finesse type team. The corn fed offensive linemen is a thing of the past is what I was told here on FH. That the new way is 3-4-5 wr sets. Spread em out. Then the read option appeared. And then it was run your QB more. But again another SB champion relied on a dominate DEF and a run game.
Ross needs to decide what he wants to see on Sundays. The high flying act you see in DEN/GB and others or the steady but surely way of grind your opponent into submission. He needs to pick one and ride that road, and damn the fans. That is where the identity will start and end. Until he does that, we will not be a consistent franchise. Being led around by your nose, by the fans, is not a way to go. He needs to learn to laugh at the irrational fan base, and be set in what he wants to win.
I would venture to say damn near 99.99999% of this board was of the thought that Parcells way was a ancient and archaic way of doing things. Carrol who has a history with Parcells, built his team in a classic Parcells mold. BB reverted back to a power run game in the 2nd half of this season. SF and Balt are two other teams built from the inside out. But this franchise and its fan base wanted a more finesse type team. The corn fed offensive linemen is a thing of the past is what I was told here on FH. That the new way is 3-4-5 wr sets. Spread em out. Then the read option appeared. And then it was run your QB more. But again another SB champion relied on a dominate DEF and a run game.
Ross needs to decide what he wants to see on Sundays. The high flying act you see in DEN/GB and others or the steady but surely way of grind your opponent into submission. He needs to pick one and ride that road, and damn the fans. That is where the identity will start and end. Until he does that, we will not be a consistent franchise. Being led around by your nose, by the fans, is not a way to go. He needs to learn to laugh at the irrational fan base, and be set in what he wants to win.
I had no problem with the idea in theory of how Parcells and Ireland wanted to build the team, but there were such rigid guidelines on height and weight, that it prevented us from looking at certain players. We also had a guy as HC that was the ultimate yes man to Parcells and didn't really have his own vision.
The successful teams have a FO and coaching staff that can work together. At first we didn't have that because Sparano didn't have his own vision, and then with Ireland/Philbin they couldn't agree.
The successful teams have a FO and coaching staff that can work together. At first we didn't have that because Sparano didn't have his own vision, and then with Ireland/Philbin they couldn't agree.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,124
- Reaction score
- 3,628
yes we do. it's the opposite of what Seattle does. They are big, fast and strong. We are small, slow and weak.
The low point in league history was a few years ago when Green Bay won the Super Bowl over Pittsburgh and ran the ball only 10 or 12 times while doing so. It was so sickening I try to forget the specifics, even though I normally remember extreme stats like that for decades.
I'll concede I was concerned the pantyhose passing style might take over the league. You certainly had idiots at Football Outsiders all but giggling that it was a certainty. But I give Schatz credit this season for predicting Seattle over Denver in the Super Bowl during preseason and sticking with it before the game.
Joe Philbin was a part of that Packer team that refused to run the ball. Huge danger zone, as I posted when we hired him. I have no idea how so many posters mock the Parcells method but have no trouble running the ball only 21.8 times per game, which is a proven path to failure if you lack an elite quarterback. Actually, many posters here have grudgingly accepted that the running game is still necessary, just as the Phibin-less Packers knew enough to draft Lacy and Franklin last spring.
There's nothing more beautiful in football than a team constructed like Seattle and exposing the pantyhose passing team as Seattle did yesterday. I can't believe the posts claiming it was a boring game. j-off-her-doll predicted that a lopsided result was possible. Kudos to him. On most sites the happy adjusters were picking Denver, by overboard fixation on Seattle's home/road reputation and trying to claim the receiver matchups favored the Broncos. I like that I don't have to weigh variables. Seattle's YPPA Differential was +2.1 and Denver was +1.6. That was enough for a play on Seattle, and a playoff record of 7-2 against the spread. Yeah, I'm sure I would have equaled that mark as a happy adjuster.
During the Griese years, Dolphin fans literally laughed at the weakling one-dimensional passing teams that faced Miami. There weren't many teams like that in the '70s but we chewed them up unmercifully. Then somehow during the Marino years we willingly became everything that we had mocked. I still have a difficult time believing it, just like it's incomprehensible that we traded the Orange Bowl for Sun Life.
I don't know that it's feasible to successfully emulate Seattle. The 49ers are not as close as it appears. Note how their defense was beaten against Baltimore last year. Even if the 49ers emerge above Seattle they are no cinch to control a top offense as Seattle did.
Seattle found a young general manager with rare ability. We could have tried to pluck someone from their tree but there's no guarantee the underlings share unique insight. My theme has always been that we lack brilliant people atop the organization. I'll give Hickey the benefit of a doubt, even if that search didn't fit any of the methods I would use. Why are we interviewing from scratch, and then scrambling to fill the position to avoid embarrassment? Ideally you would already have a name or two in mind from following their careers and listening to people you respect, and then zero in on them. But as ckparrothead said in a personal message, it's hard to be significantly above average or below average in that position. The market dictates the price for you. Most likely we have another moderate guy, not someone who can uncover late gems simultaneous with hitting big on a reasonable percentage of premium picks.
I'll concede I was concerned the pantyhose passing style might take over the league. You certainly had idiots at Football Outsiders all but giggling that it was a certainty. But I give Schatz credit this season for predicting Seattle over Denver in the Super Bowl during preseason and sticking with it before the game.
Joe Philbin was a part of that Packer team that refused to run the ball. Huge danger zone, as I posted when we hired him. I have no idea how so many posters mock the Parcells method but have no trouble running the ball only 21.8 times per game, which is a proven path to failure if you lack an elite quarterback. Actually, many posters here have grudgingly accepted that the running game is still necessary, just as the Phibin-less Packers knew enough to draft Lacy and Franklin last spring.
There's nothing more beautiful in football than a team constructed like Seattle and exposing the pantyhose passing team as Seattle did yesterday. I can't believe the posts claiming it was a boring game. j-off-her-doll predicted that a lopsided result was possible. Kudos to him. On most sites the happy adjusters were picking Denver, by overboard fixation on Seattle's home/road reputation and trying to claim the receiver matchups favored the Broncos. I like that I don't have to weigh variables. Seattle's YPPA Differential was +2.1 and Denver was +1.6. That was enough for a play on Seattle, and a playoff record of 7-2 against the spread. Yeah, I'm sure I would have equaled that mark as a happy adjuster.
During the Griese years, Dolphin fans literally laughed at the weakling one-dimensional passing teams that faced Miami. There weren't many teams like that in the '70s but we chewed them up unmercifully. Then somehow during the Marino years we willingly became everything that we had mocked. I still have a difficult time believing it, just like it's incomprehensible that we traded the Orange Bowl for Sun Life.
I don't know that it's feasible to successfully emulate Seattle. The 49ers are not as close as it appears. Note how their defense was beaten against Baltimore last year. Even if the 49ers emerge above Seattle they are no cinch to control a top offense as Seattle did.
Seattle found a young general manager with rare ability. We could have tried to pluck someone from their tree but there's no guarantee the underlings share unique insight. My theme has always been that we lack brilliant people atop the organization. I'll give Hickey the benefit of a doubt, even if that search didn't fit any of the methods I would use. Why are we interviewing from scratch, and then scrambling to fill the position to avoid embarrassment? Ideally you would already have a name or two in mind from following their careers and listening to people you respect, and then zero in on them. But as ckparrothead said in a personal message, it's hard to be significantly above average or below average in that position. The market dictates the price for you. Most likely we have another moderate guy, not someone who can uncover late gems simultaneous with hitting big on a reasonable percentage of premium picks.