How is a number 1 seed in the nfl a fraud? This isnt college football.

 

Because their offense is garbage. They are a one dimensional Del Rio like team. They can run the ball and play defense. 

 

Excuses me as I fall asleep from boredom watching that crap. 

---

Seattle had the 8th highest scoring offense this season.

 

Guess you'll be 'falling asleep' in the Super Bowl when the Seahawks move on next week.  Because Seattle rarely ever loses at home.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Seattle had the 8th highest scoring offense this season.

 

Guess you'll be 'falling asleep' in the Super Bowl when the Seahawks move on next week.  Because Seattle rarely ever loses at home.  

 

Rarely, but lost to Arizona a few weeks ago. They seem to be trending downward; post-peak. San Fran is peaking at the right time. 

---

LOL at TMD and his Harbaughsm.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

LOL at TMD and his Harbaughsm.

 

Harbaugh has been a success in both the reg season and playoffs since he's been a pro head coach. 

 

Carroll has had regular season success but very limited playoff success as a pro head coach. 

---

I love how TMD completely ignored Bullseye's post...

---

Dan Quinn is actually a very good coach as well.  Florida's defense was one of the best in the country when he was there.

 

Three out of the remaining four teams that currently don't have a Head Coach  (  Minnesota, Cleveland,  and Tennessee ) had or still have serious interest in hiring Dan Quinn as their new HC.   If Quinn doesn't get hired as an NFL HC this year,  the reason could easily be one or more teams not wanting to wait until Seattle's season is over.  Quinn seems to be on track to be an NFL HC.   In large part because of what Gus Bradley accomplished in his first season as Jaguars HC.

---

Because their offense is garbage. They are a one dimensional Del Rio like team. They can run the ball and play defense. 

 

Excuses me as I fall asleep from boredom watching that crap. 

 

Considering that playmaker Percy Harvin missed the vast majority of the season,  all things considered the Seahawks should be pleased with how their Offense performed this season.   The Seahawks built leads in most games,   which made their Defense that much more effective.   To the point that the Seahawks are a # 1 seed hosting the NFC Title game.  I'm sure the Seahawks would have signed for this scenario back in early September.

---

1.  You indicate improvement with Seattle didn't come until Carroll arrived.  You sure it wasn't due to the arrival of Earl Thomas and Cam Chancellor, who also arrived in 2010?  Yes, Carroll is known as a defensive guy, but he's had some mediocre defenses during his day.  http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CarrPe0.htm/  In fact, Seattle gave up more points in Carroll's first year than they did in Bradley's first year as Seahawks defensive coordinator, and ranked lower in overall defense.

 

2.  Yes, Bradley left Seattle and they didn't miss a beat.  But that doesn't mean Bradley was ineffective or a non factor as a coordinator.  In fact, Seattle added Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett.  They arguably have better defensive personnel this year than they did last year.

 

The bottom line is Bradley and company need to get better, but your reasoning above is no indicia that Bradley is somehow lacking as a coach.

 

 

I love how TMD completely ignored Bullseye's post...

 

Here you go, TMD. I'm sure you missed it, and you wouldn't just ignore it.

---

He'll just continue to ignore it.  That's what he does.  When he's proven wrong, he abandons a thread completely.

---

He'll just continue to ignore it.  That's what he does.  When he's proven wrong, he abandons a thread completely.

 

Not sure what you want me to say to Bullseyes post? :ermm: 

 

He made some points, and.....? 

 

Seattle fans even admit that the defense didn't really change until Carroll got there. They attribute Carroll as the lynchpin to the D, not Bradley and not Quinn. 

---

Not sure what you want me to say to Bullseyes post? :ermm:

 

He made some points, and.....? 

 

Seattle fans even admit that the defense didn't really change until Carroll got there. They attribute Carroll as the lynchpin to the D, not Bradley and not Quinn. 

 

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 able 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 have fired 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 latter, 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?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

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?

 

WHere did I say insinuate that Bradley should have been fired?? Giving more of the credit to the proper guy doesn't mean that Bradley was crap. I'm sure that Bradley brought some positive attributes to the table....

---

WHere did I say insinuate that Bradley should have been fired?? Giving more of the credit to the proper guy doesn't mean that Bradley was crap. I'm sure that Bradley brought some positive attributes to the table....

 

I never said you insinuated Bradley should be fired from Seattle.

 

You have been arguing, either expressly or tacitly, that Bradley was perhaps not the best hire here, and have minimized Bradley's role in building Seattle's defense to its current level of domination as a way of justifying that larger argument.

 

If you now re-assert (because at one point you were a strong Bradley advocate) that Bradley may have positive coaching attributes, why minimize his influence his positive attributes he may have had in Seattle? 

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

What I found interesting in yesterday's Seattle-New Orleans game is that when playing against a New Orleans Offensive Line that has demonstrable Left Tackle issues, there really wasn't a lot of pressure on Brees by the Seattle Defense. Was this by design or by under performing?

 

Good question.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I never said you insinuated Bradley should be fired from Seattle.

 

You have been arguing, either expressly or tacitly, that Bradley was perhaps not the best hire here, and have minimized Bradley's role in building Seattle's defense to its current level of domination as a way of justifying that larger argument.

 

If you now re-assert (because at one point you were a strong Bradley advocate) that Bradley may have positive coaching attributes, why minimize his influence his positive attributes he may have had in Seattle? 

 

Bradley was my 6th choice overall that year. I think at the time he may have been the best available considering who was left. But thats still "6th best" in a given year. He does have good attributes. Even when criticizing his bad attributes doesn't take away the good. He's an okay coach in all reality. There are better. There are worse. 

 

Miminizing Bradleys role in building the defense in Seattle is just stating that I believe that Carroll was the primary source of its highest ascension. While Bradley gets some credit for his assistance, when its all said and done, the one remaining constant to the top rated D is Carroll and some of the players added. But Carroll likely had a significant hand in choosing those players (along obviously with the GM), as he beared more of the responsibility in that regard, given his position. 

---

Bradley was my 6th choice overall that year. I think at the time he may have been the best available considering who was left. But thats still "6th best" in a given year. He does have good attributes. Even when criticizing his bad attributes doesn't take away the good. He's an okay coach in all reality. There are better. There are worse. 

 

Miminizing Bradleys role in building the defense in Seattle is just stating that I believe that Carroll was the primary source of its highest ascension. While Bradley gets some credit for his assistance, when its all said and done, the one remaining constant to the top rated D is Carroll and some of the players added. But Carroll likely had a significant hand in choosing those players (along obviously with the GM), as he beared more of the responsibility in that regard, given his position. 

 

Bradley is a coach in the vein of Mularkey so far. People are positive about him because he's still new, but in reality he basically replicated Mularkey's performance from 2012. Four wins with two of them coming against a tanking texans team that will be kicking our butts again in 2014 don't give me a warm fuzzy feeling, and his staff failed to develop Gabbert.

 

If he were a difference making coach the team would have likely made Gabbert at least appear average and won at least a couple of more games than it did.

 

So while I don't want to come across as accusing him of being a guy that will never be successful it's clear that he's just another coach who will require an elite level QB to carry him instead of the other way around.

---

Bradley was my 6th choice overall that year. I think at the time he may have been the best available considering who was left. But thats still "6th best" in a given year. He does have good attributes. Even when criticizing his bad attributes doesn't take away the good. He's an okay coach in all reality. There are better. There are worse. 

 

Miminizing Bradleys role in building the defense in Seattle is just stating that I believe that Carroll was the primary source of its highest ascension. While Bradley gets some credit for his assistance, when its all said and done, the one remaining constant to the top rated D is Carroll and some of the players added. But Carroll likely had a significant hand in choosing those players (along obviously with the GM), as he beared more of the responsibility in that regard, given his position. 

 

As I recall, and I am honestly hot attempting hyperbole or exaggeration here, you once said Bradley had the potential to be a "superstar" coach-most notably when the Eagles were considering him.  If I am distorting your views beyond recognition, please correct me.

 

Carroll is the one remaining constant because Bradley became our coach.

 

Had Bradley not taken the Jaguars job and not gotten any other job, he'd still likely be the defensive coordinator there. 

 

Tell me, what are his positive attributes you mentioned above?  What caused you to advocate for him?  What makes him better than some other coaching candidates/coaches?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Bradley is a coach in the vein of Mularkey so far. People are positive about him because he's still new, but in reality he basically replicated Mularkey's performance from 2012. Four wins with two of them coming against a tanking texans team that will be kicking our butts again in 2014 don't give me a warm fuzzy feeling, and his staff failed to develop Gabbert.

 

If he were a difference making coach the team would have likely made Gabbert at least appear average and won at least a couple of more games than it did.

 

So while I don't want to come across as accusing him of being a guy that will never be successful it's clear that he's just another coach who will require an elite level QB to carry him instead of the other way around.

 

I agree with a lot of this sentiment. 

 

And even more so, I look at the meat of your point above - but I affix it to the defense, since Bradley's area of "expertise" comes from the defensive side of the ball...

 

Did the defense overachieve this season? I don't see that at all. They gave up a team record 450 points. 

 

I think if Bradley was headed to be a real "difference making" coach, I think you would have seen a clear overachievement by the defense as a whole. That doesn't necessarily mean we would have seen more than 4 wins....but that 450 number would have been closer to say - 375, which would illustrate closer games, and better defense overall. 

 

There really wasn't that "statement" game by this team this season that so many of the new coaches get at least ONE of as rookie coaches. Even Del Rio had one when his 1-7 Jags beat a pretty good Colts team his rookie year....and we all know I don't think much of JDR....

---

Bradley is a coach in the vein of Mularkey so far. People are positive about him because he's still new, but in reality he basically replicated Mularkey's performance from 2012. Four wins with two of them coming against a tanking texans team that will be kicking our butts again in 2014 don't give me a warm fuzzy feeling, and his staff failed to develop Gabbert.

 

If he were a difference making coach the team would have likely made Gabbert at least appear average and won at least a couple of more games than it did.

 

So while I don't want to come across as accusing him of being a guy that will never be successful it's clear that he's just another coach who will require an elite level QB to carry him instead of the other way around.

 

 Please elaborate. How does Bradley equate to Mularkey in any way, aside from both being the Jaguars' head coach for one ear to this point and failing to develop Gabbert into anything remotely resembling a competent QB?

 

For that matter, name a coach that carried an elite level QB to greatness instead of the other way around.

 

Belicheck and Brady have dominated together for over a decade, but Belicheck's Cleveland tenure was considerably less successful.

 

Cowher won a title with Roethlisberger and coached two Steelers teams to Super Bowls, winning one, but then so did Tomlin.  Roethlisberger is a common QB to both.

 

Mike Shanahan won two Super Bowls with Denver as John Elway as his QB, but has not only not won anything since Elway retired after the 1998 season, he's been fired twice.

 

Bill Parcells arguably never had any elite QBs when he won the Super Bowl with the Giants in 1986 (Phil Simms) and in 1990 (Simms/Hostetler).

 

Gibbs never had elite QBs to elevate either with the Skins.

 

Landry won his Super Bowls with a Hall of Fame QB in Staubach, and did not win it all with a less than HOF passer in Craig Morton.

 

Noll won all 4 of his Super Bowls with Bradshaw-a Hall of Famer, and Walsh won all three of his with Montana.  Who elevated who?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!