2010 Super Bowl team - half gone

[rbaloha1]

lol, ok! I would damn well have been a big deal if they'd lost!

Very true.

[rbaloha1]

Can you offer something other than just your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here to stay? Their record this year does not by itself make for good evidence. Your claims about their superior coaching and roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the enthusiasm of the bandwagon.

Can you offer something other than your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here not to stay? . Your claims about their unsuperior coaching and poor roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the denial of how good the Packers really are.

[denverYooper]

Again the point is big roster changes does not mean rebuilding for the next season as the hawks are demonstrarting.

You guys keep pointing the Packers past success -- guess what -- over 1/2 the roster is gone from the super bowl and the replacements have not won a PLAYOFF GAME SINCE.

On the other hand, the hawks have significantly changed their roster during the same period and won 2 playoff games and were closer to the NFL championship game this season than the Packers.

You might want to check your facts.

[rbaloha1]

You might want to check your facts.

Yea -- they beat Viqueens -- stand corrected.

[denverYooper]

Can you offer something other than your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here not to stay? . Your claims about their unsuperior coaching and poor roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the denial of how good the Packers really are.

I offered a reason above to believe that the Seahawks might regress next year: their DC left for a HC'ing gig.

I know at least one team last year where their dominant unit lost their OC to an HC gig and questions were asked all season whether that led to their dropoff.

[rbaloha1]

I offered a reason above to believe that the Seahawks might regress next year: their DC left for a HC'ing gig.

I know at least one team last year where their dominant unit lost their OC to an HC gig and questions were asked all season whether that led to their dropoff.

Nah Pete Carroll calls the defense.

Please also ask other posters to check their facts when required since you want to play board policeman.

[Guiness]

Can you offer something other than your own persistent assertion about why we should see the Seahawks as here not to stay? . Your claims about their unsuperior coaching and poor roster talent do not strike me as very credible. I guess I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from, unless it is just the denial of how good the Packers really are.

I don't think he (or I?) are saying the Seahawks are simply a flash in the pan, have lesser talent or the coaching is not good. Simply saying the jury is out if they will maintain their success. The playoff win 2 years ago was a lightning strike after a mediocre season, and it was followed up by a year in which they did not make the post-season.

This year they came on strong, and played well. Their starting CBs are both second year players, and the rest of the defense looks good. Their O, on the other hand, is suspect. I'm not sure about Wilson and the rest on that side of the ball. No #1 WR, top guy is a constantly injured Rice. We'll see what they have in Tate. I like Zach Miller, but he's not a game changer. Lynch is going to continue to play well, but an RB can't carry a team in today's NFL. Most importantly though, I think Wilson is a gimmick and while he may be a starter for a while, he will be a mediocre one.

Coaching...what can you say about Carroll? I can't shake the feeling he ran from the college ranks to escape the punishment that was going to be leveled at him. His honeymoon in Seattle is over, after this year they're going to expect big things out of the team. How does he handle is? What kind of a locker room presence does he have - can he consistently motivate players to play to their potential, or will his act wear off after a couple of years? College coaches don't have to worry about that, by the time a player gets used to your spiel, they've moved on and there's a new batch of recruits. Can Carroll maintain interest with 10 year vets?

[rbaloha1]

I don't think he (or I?) are saying the Seahawks are simply a flash in the pan, have lesser talent or the coaching is not good. Simply saying the jury is out if they will maintain their success. The playoff win 2 years ago was a lightning strike after a mediocre season, and it was followed up by a year in which they did not make the post-season.

This year they came on strong, and played well. Their starting CBs are both second year players, and the rest of the defense looks good. Their O, on the other hand, is suspect. I'm not sure about Wilson and the rest on that side of the ball. No #1 WR, top guy is a constantly injured Rice. We'll see what they have in Tate. I like Zach Miller, but he's not a game changer. Lynch is going to continue to play well, but an RB can't carry a team in today's NFL. Most importantly though, I think Wilson is a gimmick and while he may be a starter for a while, he will be a mediocre one.

Coaching...what can you say about Carroll? I can't shake the feeling he ran from the college ranks to escape the punishment that was going to be leveled at him. His honeymoon in Seattle is over, after this year they're going to expect big things out of the team. How does he handle is? What kind of a locker room presence does he have - can he consistently motivate players to play to their potential, or will his act wear off after a couple of years? College coaches don't have to worry about that, by the time a player gets used to your spiel, they've moved on and there's a new batch of recruits. Can Carroll maintain interest with 10 year vets?

Braddah -- others are saying the hawks are a flash in the pan just like the spread option.

Of course the jury is still out for the hawks because they have not been to the super bowl. But their recent acquisition of talent and play on the field demonstrates how quickly success is possible.. Rebuilding in the NFL is an excuse and the result of poor coaching and management.

What Carroll did to SC by getting them on probation has zero relevance what we are talking about.

Just shows that while I admire TT's ability to find street free agents you still need to get higher quality paid free agents.

[mraynrand]

Should we compare the 1921 packers against the current era?

The issue is the bold recent chages made by a TT protege that has resulted in a better roster than the Packers.

The hawks 3 years ago has no bearing in the argument since there almost all gone just like over 50 per cent of the packers are gone.

Its about now and if TT does not acquring free agents that do not screw the cap the Packers are in trouble of not winning the NFC.

then stop using the Hawks that won a playoff game two years ago (but got demolished by the same Bears team the Packers dismantled) to bolster whatever argument you are making. If you are trying to say that the Seachickens are showing a positive upward trend, that's indisputable. They finished strong and should have made the NFCC game, but for a final drive defensive meltdown. So what? They play in the most competitive Division of the toughest conference - IMO - and regardless of how good they are, they'l be severely challenged to improve on this season - especially since they likely won't get a free win! The proof will be in the pudding, but I'll wait to see it play out. I have no prediction at this time because I don't know who will be on the rosters in the fall and who will be healthy.

About your free agent argument: was Seattle built via free agency?

About your roster/coach comparison argument: That's your opinion. Green Bay beat Seattle straight up on the road and they both got as far in the playoffs. I like a few players on Seattle's defense better than GB's but I'd rather have Rodgers and our WRs. Our O-line is generally better at pass pro and there's is better at run blocking. They have a better featured RB. It's mostly a wash, except for we have better past performance - that is, the core Packer roster won a Superbowl.

Stubby has a better record coaching in the Pros than Pete Carroll, and has never been fired as a HC.

[rbaloha1]

then stop using the Hawks that won a playoff game two years ago (but got demolished by the same Bears team the Packers dismantled) to bolster whatever argument you are making. If you are trying to say that the Seachickens are showing a positive upward trend, that's indisputable. They finished strong and should have made the NFCC game, but for a final drive defensive meltdown. So what? They play in the most competitive Division of the toughest conference - IMO - and regardless of how good they are, they'l be severely challenged to improve on this season - especially since they likely won't get a free win! The proof will be in the pudding, but I'll wait to see it play out. I have no prediction at this time because I don't know who will be on the rosters in the fall and who will be healthy.

About your free agent argument: was Seattle built via free agency?

About your roster/coach comparison argument: That's your opinion. Green Bay beat Seattle straight up on the road and they both got as far in the playoffs. I like a few players on Seattle's defense better than GB's but I'd rather have Rodgers and our WRs. Our O-line is generally better at pass pro and there's is better at run blocking. They have a better featured RB. It's mostly a wash, except for we have better past performance - that is, the core Packer roster won a Superbowl.

Stubby has a better record coaching in the Pros than Pete Carroll, and has never been fired as a HC.

Boy you flip flop all over the place.

The point about free agency is to use it properly -- it is impossible to use it for the whole team. Pickett and Woodson were excellent acquisitions but what has happened since? Too many street free agents that are capable of winning the north and posting a good regualr season records but fail in the playoffs.

BTW WHAT DOES STUBBY'S OVERALL RECORD HAVE TO DO WITH THE NOW AND NOT BEING FIRED?

BILL BELICHEK WAS FIRED BY THE BROWNS.

[mraynrand]

The point about free agency is to use it properly -- it is impossible to use it for the whole team. Pickett and Woodson were excellent acquisitions but what has happened since? Too many street free agents that are capable of winning the north and posting a good regualr season records but fail in the playoffs.

Did Seattle build their roster with FA?

BTW WHAT DOES STUBBY'S OVERALL RECORD HAVE TO DO WITH THE NOW AND NOT BEING FIRED?

BILL BELICHEK WAS FIRED BY THE BROWNS.

So what? Stubby has a better record than Carroll and hasn't been fired as HC. You made the claim that Seattle's coaching staff was better; by objective criteria you are completely, totally, demonstrably wrong.

[sharpe1027]

The reason the Seahawks are such a big story is that they are the exception. Even if we accept that the Seachickens are here to stay long term, there are plenty of examples of teams that have been successful without overhauling their entire roster. How many Superbowl winners in the past 10 years were teams that had similar roster turnover?

The Seachickens surprised people because huge turnover is hardly ever a recipe for immediate success. You can model your team after a one-off exception, but you would be ignoring all the other evidence of even more successful teams doing something different and unsuccessful teams doing something similar.

[denverYooper]

We need to call up Nelly because it's getting hot in here.

[rbaloha1]

The reason the Seahawks are such a big story is that they are the exception. Even if we accept that the Seachickens are here to stay long term, there are plenty of examples of teams that have been successful without overhauling their entire roster. How many Superbowl winners in the past 10 years were teams that had similar roster turnover?

The Seachickens surprised people because huge turnover is hardly ever a recipe for immediate success. You can model your team after a one-off exception, but you would be ignoring all the other evidence of even more successful teams doing something different and unsuccessful teams doing something similar.

Times are changing are the seachicks are a now example of old cliches.

BTW the seachickens have a young roster with some people saying the chickens could have rookie of the year on both sides of the ball.

Old cliches and mindsets are being disproven.

[rbaloha1]

We need to call up Nelly because it's getting hot in here.

Nah the tradewinds always keep it cool in the face of nitwits.