Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Comments

  • Bob_CBob_C Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,764 Swaye's Wigwam
    Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

    Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.

  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,731 Founders Club
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789
    Bob_C said:

    Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

    Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.

    Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

    They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

    Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789
    The LOB Seahawks have their unique place in history. But there’s no reason why the current Seahawks can’t get back to elite status with some tweaks to personnel (particularly on defense) and better health. The fact that Seattle has remained competitive in the the post-Legion of Boom era shows what the team is capable of. Since their last Super Bowl run in the 2014 season, the Seahawks have made the playoffs in four of five years. Just one of those four postseason trips ended in the Wild Card.

    There's plenty of reason they can't get back to elite status. You aren't just "some tweaks to personnel" away from a bottom third defense to elite status.

    And yes they Hawks have made the playoffs four of five years. That's what happens when you have an elite QB.

    They have failed to make it past the divisional round in each of those years. That's what happens when you have a coach who thinks he still has an elite defense.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 106,804 Founders Club
    Yep. Rodgers makes the playoffs almost every year and its been a decade since they won it

    It annoys me when Hawk honks say Seattle is second only to the Pats as a dynasty. The distance between 1 and 2 is vast

    I do give Allen a lot of credit. Since he bought the team they have fought their way to relevance. The Holmgren plan to lose the 2005 Super Bowl. The Carroll plan to go 1-1 in the Super Bowl. For this franchise it is historic. For the league it is middling. A 1-2 record in the Super Bowl 54 years in

    2nd tier I would say behind the big boys like the Pats, Steelers Niners et al
  • UWerentThereManUWerentThereMan Member Posts: 3,475
    dnc said:

    Bob_C said:

    Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

    Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.

    Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

    They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

    Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
    Overall just a couple plays from being in the Super Bowl. Ball bounces a little different here and there, maybe a couple more touchdowns here instead of a few sacks. As close as you can get without being super bowl champs three years in a row.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789

    Yep. Rodgers makes the playoffs almost every year and its been a decade since they won it

    It annoys me when Hawk honks say Seattle is second only to the Pats as a dynasty. The distance between 1 and 2 is vast

    I do give Allen a lot of credit. Since he bought the team they have fought their way to relevance. The Holmgren plan to lose the 2005 Super Bowl. The Carroll plan to go 1-1 in the Super Bowl. For this franchise it is historic. For the league it is middling. A 1-2 record in the Super Bowl 54 years in

    2nd tier I would say behind the big boys like the Pats, Steelers Niners et al

    Seattle is second to the Pats in the PC era in the same way that UW is second to UW in the Pac (insert number here) era.

    In both cases there is first place and there is everyone else.
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    Is Ivan Lewis still the strength coordinator? Will factor in how much I care in this
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 64,058 Founders Club
    Gladstone said:

    Is Ivan Lewis still the strength coordinator? Will factor in how much I care in this

    That's the amazing thing, isn't it? It's preposterous.
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,731 Founders Club

    dnc said:

    Bob_C said:

    Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

    Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.

    Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

    They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

    Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
    Overall just a couple plays from being in the Super Bowl. Ball bounces a little different here and there, maybe a couple more touchdowns here instead of a few sacks. As close as you can get without being super bowl champs three years in a row.
    Are you saying the last 3 years or the 3 years starting with them winning it? Because I think the OP is talking about this year and this team has come nowhere close to the super bowl 3 straight years.
  • UWerentThereManUWerentThereMan Member Posts: 3,475

    dnc said:

    Bob_C said:

    Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

    Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.

    Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

    They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

    Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
    Overall just a couple plays from being in the Super Bowl. Ball bounces a little different here and there, maybe a couple more touchdowns here instead of a few sacks. As close as you can get without being super bowl champs three years in a row.
    Are you saying the last 3 years or the 3 years starting with them winning it? Because I think the OP is talking about this year and this team has come nowhere close to the super bowl 3 straight years.
    I was lampooning
  • The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    edited January 2020

    The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.

    Even in the LOB days, they got shredded anytime a starter at DB was out.

    I don’t mind running the ball, but ideally we would run more later in the game after building a lead, not running and keeping it close by doing so and throwing late. The always compete, win in the 4th shit backfires at times.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,789

    The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.

    Even in the LOB days, they got shredded anytime a starter at DB was out.

    I don’t mind running the ball, but ideally we would run more later in the game after building a lead, not running and keeping it close by doing so and throwing late. The always compete, win in the 4th shit backfires at times.
    If you mean Sherman, Earl or Kam, yes.

    If you mean the rotating corner opposite of Sherm, not really.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    edited January 2020
    dnc said:

    The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.

    Even in the LOB days, they got shredded anytime a starter at DB was out.

    I don’t mind running the ball, but ideally we would run more later in the game after building a lead, not running and keeping it close by doing so and throwing late. The always compete, win in the 4th shit backfires at times.
    If you mean Sherman, Earl or Kam, yes.

    If you mean the rotating corner opposite of Sherm, not really.
    Lane in the Super Bowl was a huge loss and cost us the game. We wouldn’t have needed a game winning TD if he didn’t get hurt.

    Maxwell moved inside where he was worse and I’ll suited to guard Edelman and Simon got destroyed.
Sign In or Register to comment.