2010 Super Bowl team - half gone

[rbaloha1]

Both have starting lineups that are pretty close to last year's starting 22.



Neither did better last year than the Packers did this year. Yet, they made the Superbowl without major overhauls.

So if the Packers follow this they will be in the super bowl next year? Did both of these teams have a championship caliber defense? Do the Packers have a championship caliber defense?

What about the remaining roster?




The Seachickens could beat either team. They could also lose to either team.

I am not asking the what if? Why did the seachickens dominate the niners late in the season while the packers were blown out?

[rbaloha1]

Does Caroll have final say? IMO that is always a big mistake, and pushes me far towards the opinion that he will not have long term success. I don't think it's possible to hold those two jobs in the NFL. Two problems - there is too much involved, causing burnout, and the tendency of coaches to hold on to players too long after they've fallen off, because of what they've done in the past.

Our own two examples, Sherman here and Holmgren after he left, demonstrate how bad it can go with that model. Seperation of church and the state is paramount!

Yes, that was the condition for taking the job. He learned from his previous NFL jobs that in order for him to have success he must have final say.

So far Carroll is an excellent evaluator of talent. This is by no means Sherman/Holmgren personnel idiocy.

[sharpe1027]

I am not asking the what if? Why did the seachickens dominate the niners late in the season while the packers were blown out?

They played better and probably had better talent on the field. Look, you are trying to convince people that the Packer's should pay more attention to how the Seachickens operate than to how the past SB winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to how past division winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to teams that are consistently good over the long term.

So, convince us: Why should all the focus be on this one team and not on any of the other more successful teams over the past 5 years?

[rbaloha1]

They played better and probably had better talent on the field. Look, you are trying to convince people that the Packer's should pay more attention to how the Seachickens operate than to how the past SB winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to how past division winners operate. That they should pay more attention to the Seachickens than to teams that are consistently good over the long term.

So, convince us: Why should all the focus be on this one team and not on any of the other more successful teams over the past 5 years?

Not trying to convice you on anything. Keep believing in what you want. Something is currently not working since the super bowl as evidenced by the 2 season ending blowouts by being physically dominated.

Braddah -- go smoke some medical mj or take xanax or get some sun.

Pau -- time for surf my freezing rats.

[Patler]

Last season the Seahawks turnover was 75 per cent. Packers need an ovehaul albeit not at 75 per cent.

According to their newspaper coverage comparing their 2010 playoff roster to this season's:

When the Seahawks (11-5) face Washington in Sunday’s playoff opener, they’ll have 33 new faces on the 53-man roster from two seasons ago. The moves were drastic in some areas and subtle in others.

Per the article on the Packers roster, they have 26 new faces since 2010.

In 2010 the Packers won the Super Bowl, then went 15-1 in 2011, and 11-5 in 2012 while replacing 26 players.
In 2010 the Seahawks were 7-9, then were 7-9 again in 2011, and 11-5 in 2012 while replacing 33 players.

I guess I don't see the big difference, especially considering where each team was in 2010-2011.

[Zool]

Pete Carroll is a fucking joke

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...es/CarrPe0.htm

This entire thread is pretty much at the same location as Carrolls coaching prowess. I think my favorite part was his fortuitous jump to the NFL right as the NCAA sanctions were coming down in USC.

Fuck him and fuck the Seahawks.

[rbaloha1]

Pete Carroll is a fucking joke

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...es/CarrPe0.htm

This entire thread is pretty much at the same location as Carrolls coaching prowess. I think my favorite part was his fortuitous jump to the NFL right as the NCAA sanctions were coming down in USC.

Fuck him and fuck the Seahawks.

You are correct only because you are the commish.

[sharpe1027]

Not trying to convice you on anything. Keep believing in what you want. Something is currently not working since the super bowl as evidenced by the 2 season ending blowouts by being physically dominated.

Braddah -- go smoke some medical mj or take xanax or get some sun.

Pau -- time for surf my freezing rats.

Regardless of whether or not something is not working, that doesn't mean they should copy the Seachickens. They were, and still are, two different franchises in two different positions.

[rbaloha1]

Regardless of whether or not something is not working, that doesn't mean they should copy the Seachickens. They were, and still are, two different franchises in two different positions.

Braddah do not take everything so literally.

The issue imo is the current roster is not capable of beating the niners. The 30 per cent turnover is also not working -- only able to win the north.

The seachickens are an example of having success with an excessively high turnover. IMO the Packers need to change a minimum of 50 per cent of the roster.

[rbaloha1]

Pete Carroll is a fucking joke

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...es/CarrPe0.htm

This entire thread is pretty much at the same location as Carrolls coaching prowess. I think my favorite part was his fortuitous jump to the NFL right as the NCAA sanctions were coming down in USC.

Fuck him and fuck the Seahawks.

Its not about only coaching prowess but personnel and drafting moves.

[sharpe1027]

Braddah do not take everything so literally.

The issue imo is the current roster is not capable of beating the niners. The 30 per cent turnover is also not working -- only able to win the north.

The seachickens are an example of having success with an excessively high turnover. IMO the Packers need to change a minimum of 50 per cent of the roster.

Dude, just say what you mean then. I have no problem with the Packers improving, but the Seachickens are about the only example of success with excessively high turnover. There are multiple examples of low turnover and at least as much "success."

[rbaloha1]

Dude, just say what you mean then. I have no problem with the Packers improving, but the Seachickens are about the only example of success with excessively high turnover. There are multiple examples of low turnover and at least as much "success."

Dude, the game is changing as we speak. Quicker roster turnover is becoming new norm.

Low turnover works if you already have a super bowl level roster which imo the packers do not have but the ravens and 49ers do.

[sharpe1027]

Dude, the game is changing as we speak. Quicker roster turnover is becoming new norm.

Low turnover works if you already have a super bowl level roster which imo the packers do not have but the ravens and 49ers do.

The norm is not defined by one team.

[rbaloha1]

The norm is not defined by one team.

With the emergence of spread option/pistol, etc. requires changes on both sides of the ball -- i.e. higher roster changes than the previous monolithic NFL with majority of teams running wco offenses and high percentage of cover 2 defenses or 3-4.

Additional skill sets are required. Plus the cap is going up.

Plus how many new college coaches were hired? More roster changes.

Keep denying it and go masturbate.

[Patler]

The Packers won the SB, went 15-1 and 11-5 while changing 26 players.
The Seahawks went 7-9, 7-9 then 11-5 while changing 33 players.

I think it can be argued that Packers have actually been more aggressive in making changes than the Seahawks have been, when you consider that the Packers were working from the base of a roster that won the SB and then went 15-1 while the Seahawks were working from the base of a roster that went 7-9 and 7-9.

The Seahawks changed 33 players who accomplished nothing.
The Packers replaced 26 who won a SB and/or went 15-1.