Quote:Perhaps the improvement to Seattle's defense is as attributable to talent in this case (if not more so) than coaching.

 

Let's try this from the coach loyalty perspective you discussed with Bradley and the coordinators in a different thread.

 

If Carroll is this defensive mastermind, and he didn't think Bradley believed in his schemes or was eble to effectively teach/coach these schemes such that it would preclude the team from winning, wouldn't he have brought in his own guys when he came aboard?  Wouldn't he havefired him (or at least demoted him) after a year where the defense arguably regressed?

 

Since he didn't fire Bradley after that year of regression, was Carroll unnecessarily loyal to a bad defensive assistant who could not effectively help Carroll teach and implement his successful schemes or did he keep Bradley along, even though he inherited him from a previous coaching staff, realize he could actually coach, and keep him even through the regression?

 

If it is the former, why didn't Carroll fire Bradley?  Why isn't Carroll questioned for loyalty to bad assistant coaches/coordinators, especially when he inherited Bradley?  If it is the former, to what do you attribute the defensive improvement Seattle eventually saw?  Did Seattle's defense improve despite Bradley's presence on the staff?  If so, what evidence do you have to support the idea that Bradley was an anchor that stifled Seattle's defensive improvement?