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.