pjfootballer Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Neverminding the "adderall" bit, Pete Carroll was not the same coach then. It wasn't until after he was fired by the Patriots that he took some time, did some soul searching, and developed his philosophy that he used at USC and in Seattle. So yes, knocking the Jets for letting Pete Carroll go and hiring Rich Kottite, while it isn't revisionist history per se, certainly is judging past actions on things that could not have been known at the time, which IMO is almost as bad. Yes, just being a bit "cheeky" with the adderall bit. True, it was when he had to become a position coach (I believe in Buffalo and Minnesota) that he had to reflect. I guess my point was (And I think you agree with me) that you cannot look 20 years back on what is happening now. If that was the case, then we can look back at the Giants in 1959 and say they were stupid for bypassing Vince Lombardi for head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn X Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 If you look at the likes I've doled out in this thread (well, this page of the thread, as I'm not reading back through 200 pages of comments), you'll see that I'm somewhat conflicted. I mean, heck, I've given likes to darrelgreenie and NoCalMike. When the Super Bowl matchup was set, I immediately decided that I wanted Denver to win, mostly because Dick Sherman, Mike Bennett and some of those other loudmouths on the Seahawks' defense annoy the hell outta me. However, as it turned out, I did find it enjoyable to see Seattle's head coach, Pete Carroll, whose enthusiasm for the game is infectious, become only the third coach in history to win a national championship in college football and a Vince Lombardi Trophy in pro football. In fact, I had started to think right before the game started that maybe I wanted Carroll to win, especially after I heard some ignoramuses describe him as a "cheater" because of the Reggie Bush fiasco at USC, even though he was never cited by the NCAA as being involved with that situation, nor was a so-called "show-cause" letter placed in his dossier (which would've meant that -- had he ever wanted to return to college football -- the NCAA would've had to clear him before any university could hire him). Some people like to complain about things just to complain about them, knowing very little about the underlying facts involved. And the idea that some of those people were saddened or irritated by the Super Bowl's final score is fine with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Or instead of complicated back-pedalling/rationalization you could just admit that Wilson is more then a game-manager. lmao Except I'm not back-peddling. What I was attempting to do was explain that I didn't/don't view Wilson as a scrub QB, which I really never said anyway, but because everyone associated "game manager" as meaning "bad" I was attempting to explain that I think Wilson is fine and adequate for the kind of team the Seahawks have built. And I stand by my stance that with the defense and special teams of the Seahawks, most QB's in the league could have been a Superbowl winner. Same as the 2000 Ravens, '85 Bears...etc..... It's not a knock on Wilson, because I am not trying to claim that there is a ceiling on how good he can be in the future. I am merely commenting on what he does in the present/past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Yes, just being a bit "cheeky" with the adderall bit. True, it was when he had to become a position coach (I believe in Buffalo and Minnesota) that he had to reflect. I guess my point was (And I think you agree with me) that you cannot look 20 years back on what is happening now. If that was the case, then we can look back at the Giants in 1959 and say they were stupid for bypassing Vince Lombardi for head coach. Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I often get into disagreements with Seahawks fans about the previous regime (Holmgren & Ruskell) and their role in losing guard Steve Hutchinson to the poison pill contract offered by the Vikings. While I am no fan of Ruskell's, and agree with most Seahawks fans that he was in large part responsible for the franchise's downhill slide following Super Bowl XL, I don't hold him responsible for losing Hutch by using the Transition tag instead of the Franchise tag. The short version -- many people assumed it was merely to save $500K, but what Ruskell said was that they couldn't agree on contract numbers, so the T-tag would allow Hutch to find his market value, and then the Seahawks could match it. Of course, the Vikings offered the poison pill contract and Hutch signed it, and the rest is history. Where this is relevant: Many of the people who assume the T-tag was merely for saving money insist Ruskell should have used the Franchise tag because he should have anticipated the poison pill. My problem with that is that the poison pill, as written in that contract, never existed before. When I raise that point, many respond with something like "it doesn't matter, he still should have anticipated it." I find that unreasonable. So, I tend not to judge past decisions based on facts that could not have been known at the time the decisions were made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Except I'm not back-peddling. What I was attempting to do was explain that I didn't/don't view Wilson as a scrub QB, which I really never said anyway, but because everyone associated "game manager" as meaning "bad" I was attempting to explain that I think Wilson is fine and adequate for the kind of team the Seahawks have built. And I stand by my stance that with the defense and special teams of the Seahawks, most QB's in the league could have been a Superbowl winner. Same as the 2000 Ravens, '85 Bears...etc..... It's not a knock on Wilson, because I am not trying to claim that there is a ceiling on how good he can be in the future. I am merely commenting on what he does in the present/past. As a Seahawks fan, I am not bothered by people calling Wilson a "game manager" -- heck, Pete Carroll's description of Wilson and his role is "point guard", which implies something of a game manager. However, if when people say that, they imply Wilson is not capable of making big plays, or taking the team on his shoulders to win a game, they are simply wrong. Last season, Carroll deliberately limited Wilson's role to protect him from David Carr syndrome. But against the Bears in Chicago, after the team struggled through most of the game, Wilson won it in the 4th quarter and OT practically by himself. After that, the shackles came off. In the playoffs, he orchestrated come-from-behind victories against you guys and the Falcons. (Unfortunately for us, our defense didn't prevent them from scoring again in the last half-minute, and thus our season ended.) This year, toward the end of the season, it looked like he was starting to slip a little. A lot of that was the defenses we faced, but also it looked like he just wasn't as sharp. I don't know the whats or whys, but the apparent drop-off wasn't enough to keep us from going all the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Except I'm not back-peddling. What I was attempting to do was explain that I didn't/don't view Wilson as a scrub QB, which I really never said anyway, but because everyone associated "game manager" as meaning "bad" I was attempting to explain that I think Wilson is fine and adequate for the kind of team the Seahawks have built. And I stand by my stance that with the defense and special teams of the Seahawks, most QB's in the league could have been a Superbowl winner. Same as the 2000 Ravens, '85 Bears...etc..... It's not a knock on Wilson, because I am not trying to claim that there is a ceiling on how good he can be in the future. I am merely commenting on what he does in the present/past. Russell Wilson--63.6 comp%---- 6,475 pass yards-----52 TDs---19 INTs---8.09 YPA---65.8 QBR---100.6 PSR Andrew Luck----57.0 comp%-----8,196 pass yards-----46 TDs----27 INTs--6.85 YPA---63.8 QBR----81.5 PSR Russell Wilson---1,028 rushing yards--5.4 YPC---5 TD--61 first downs Andrew Luck-------632 rushing yards--5.1 YPC---9 TD--46 first downs Wilson is a great improvisational player with the willingness and ability to make the 'bigtime' throws. Nothing about Wilson production or playing style suggests 'game manager'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedBNG Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I am shocked that the Broncos didn't study more carefully the teams/games where offenses were effectively moving the ball on that defense and tried to incorporate more of that offense into their plan. I was thinking the same thing. Even the Giants studied how the Browns were able to stop the Patriots during the regular season when they both met up in the SB for that first time. I know some on here feel that any QB could have won that SB for the Seahawks, and to some extent, I agree. But Wilson DID play very well in getting them out of bad 3rd down situations (something the Skins could learn a bit about), and he helped them to win 13 games (wow, we can't even manage to reach 11) during the regular season. I'm not saying he's a Montana or anything, but I feel he could be a thorn in every ones side in the NFC in years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Last season, Carroll deliberately limited Wilson's role to protect him from David Carr syndrome. But against the Bears in Chicago, after the team struggled through most of the game, Wilson won it in the 4th quarter and OT practically by himself. After that, the shackles came off. In the playoffs, he orchestrated come-from-behind victories against you guys and the Falcons. (Unfortunately for us, our defense didn't prevent them from scoring again in the last half-minute, and thus our season ended.) I'd say the 'Skins starting QB playing on one leg had a lot to do with Seattle's comeback. If you remember the game then you'll remember that even after Robert got hurt, it still took awhile for Seattle to take the lead. Wilson also there what should have been a touchback INT right into Reed Daughty's chest, but he dropped it. Again, the 'Skins playoff game is a perfect example of what having a monster at defense can do for a young QB. The 'Skins looked like they were about to run away with the game until Robert got hurt. I am sure Seattle's defense would have adjusted ANYWAY and it would have been a competitive game still but the way things were looking before Robert got hurt, Wilson would not have had the benefit of having two and a half quarters to come back from a 14-0 deficit. That Seahawks defense kept the 'Skins to 14 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted February 6, 2014 Author Share Posted February 6, 2014 Damn, just saw this http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/03/doug-baldwin-to-cris-carter-your-analytical-skills-arent-up-to-par-yet/ Doug Baldwin to Cris Carter: "Your analytical skills aren’t up to par yet" “For all y’all who called us, the receiving corps, average, pedestrian, appetizers—I’m not going to say any names, but he knows who he is—I respect what you did on the field, but stick to playing football, because your analytical skills ain’t up to par yet. You need to slow down and go back and not do it half-assed and put some effort into it, because you’re saying some stuff that didn’t really make sense,” Baldwin said, via John Boyle of the Everett Herald. “That dude who said that we were appetizers, he told me to Google him, and I did Google him, but I didn’t see any Super Bowl appearances, and I also saw two losses in conference championships. I have a Super Bowl ring, and I would gladly show that to him. And if he doesn’t have time to come see it, tell him he can Google it.” I like CC, but dude got fried. Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 There are plenty of average players who end up with Super bowl rings though, and plenty of HOF caliber players who walk away without them. Congrats to Doug Baldwin and all, but a ring doesn't all of the sudden make him a superstar WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 Yeah because in 1995 we could all see that 20 years later Pete "adderall" Carroll would be a SB winner. He was such a hot commodity in the NFL during that time. Revisionist history...That wasn't the point of my post. Was just pointing out how crazy that turned out. They fired a coach that turned out years later to be great, to hire possibly the worst NFL head coach of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The Shehawk players just need to shut the **** up already. You won, we get it. Just go enjoy your win and stop being A-holes. You sound like poor winners. Have some class and dignity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.