The Bloom is off of Seattle

[BOTT]

I think the owners are making a big mistake. There are going to be a lor of positive tests. The NBA doesn't even test for marijuana. I can't figure out why the NFL would either

Hell, a couple yes ago even Polian said that GM's wish they wouldn't test for it.

[ztboiler]

I think if Seattle continues to struggle Carroll will have a tough time on his hands. He has a lot of explosive personalities so we will see how he handles keeping everyone united. Their games against the niners and cards will tell us a lot about what type of team they are this year.

Seattle hasn't even begun to struggle yet.  They've simply lost 2 games, and they lost 3 last year.

 

History says that prosperity is tough to handle, but the actual onset of erosion is tough to predict.  I do agree that Carroll will have a difficult time bringing order to the playground once the wave crests, but with an ascending QB who is also a strong leader, that day may be farther out than you are suggesting.

[Andy]

Been saying it all year: all they really is have is their reputation.

 

In terms of talent and skill, they are above most teams, but they aren't as dominant as last year. The Cowboys also proved this week that any good team can beat Seattle in Seattle.

[Superman]

We can agree to disagree on his time in NE. The team was an absolute mess when Bill took over in 2000. Check out Michael Holly's book Patriot Reign some time and you will get a bird's eye view of just how awful Carroll's time was in NE. And we can also disagree on USC as well. Many of his wins were wiped from the record books.

 

Personally, I am not a fan of players coaches but for sure they can have success. I just wonder how long before it implodes. Mike Tomlin and Rex Ryan are good examples. Early success and then tough times the last few years. 

 

And BTW, I am not blaming Carroll necessarily for the way the team looks so far. It is very hard to motivate a team that is coming off a SB win. Complacency naturally settles in which is why it is so tough to repeat along with the first place schedule and the big target on your back - you get everyone's A game.

 

The impetus for this thread was yesterday's game because I saw Seattle get out played physically at home by the Cowboys who have not exactly been known for their brawn over recent seasons. Perhaps the game says more about Dallas than Seattle but they do seem off this year probably for many reasons. Their divisional games vs the niners and cards will tell us a lot about how far they will go this season.

 

I understand that he didn't run the Pats well. I still think "horrible" is an overstatement, especially for a coach with his record while he was there. And again, that's the basis of my disagreement: his record doesn't match the public opinion, if you ask me. 

 

And I do feel like you were blaming Carroll for the team's struggles (if you can even call them that; the Cowboys have quality wins and look like a very good team). Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

 

The difference between Carroll and Rex Ryan is that Carroll isn't blustery and bombastic. I don't think Mike Tomlin is, either. And while the Steelers have been on the downs lately (and I think personnel is more at issue than coaching, with an aging roster and cap issues), Tomlin does have a Super Bowl ring and another Super Bowl appearance. Pete Carroll has a ring. Rex Ryan hasn't been to a Super Bowl, and when his teams struggle, it's blowout losses and no hope. Not losing to a good team after a long playoff run. I don't think they are in the same category, and again, Carroll's resume is what sets the two apart (Tomlin, also). 

 

On the Cowboys, they look much different than they ever have. Demarco Murray is the first back since Jim Brown to have 100+ yards in the first six games of the season. Think about all the great backs and all the power running teams of the last 50 years, and none of them have done what the Cowboys have done this year. I think we can throw out what they looked like in recent seasons; they are a physical, dominant running team, and will be for as long as they stay healthy. I do think this game says as much about the Cowboys as it does the Seahawks, but time will tell.

 

Seahawks, I don't think there's anything wrong with them. It's a long season. Maybe there is some complacency, but really, they lost two games to two good teams. Happened to them last year, and it happens to every good team, with almost no exceptions. 

[Superman]

Been saying it all year: all they really is have is their reputation.

 

In terms of talent and skill, they are above most teams, but they aren't as dominant as last year. The Cowboys also proved this week that any good team can beat Seattle in Seattle.

 

Disagree to the bolded. Seattle has already beaten Green Bay and Denver at home. So, not "any good team." But yes, they are beatable.

[amfootball]

I understand that he didn't run the Pats well. I still think "horrible" is an overstatement, especially for a coach with his record while he was there. And again, that's the basis of my disagreement: his record doesn't match the public opinion, if you ask me. 

 

And I do feel like you were blaming Carroll for the team's struggles (if you can even call them that; the Cowboys have quality wins and look like a very good team). Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

 

The difference between Carroll and Rex Ryan is that Carroll isn't blustery and bombastic. I don't think Mike Tomlin is, either. And while the Steelers have been on the downs lately (and I think personnel is more at issue than coaching, with an aging roster and cap issues), Tomlin does have a Super Bowl ring and another Super Bowl appearance. Pete Carroll has a ring. Rex Ryan hasn't been to a Super Bowl, and when his teams struggle, it's blowout losses and no hope. Not losing to a good team after a long playoff run. I don't think they are in the same category, and again, Carroll's resume is what sets the two apart (Tomlin, also). 

 

On the Cowboys, they look much different than they ever have. Demarco Murray is the first back since Jim Brown to have 100+ yards in the first six games of the season. Think about all the great backs and all the power running teams of the last 50 years, and none of them have done what the Cowboys have done this year. I think we can throw out what they looked like in recent seasons; they are a physical, dominant running team, and will be for as long as they stay healthy. I do think this game says as much about the Cowboys as it does the Seahawks, but time will tell.

 

Seahawks, I don't think there's anything wrong with them. It's a long season. Maybe there is some complacency, but really, they lost two games to two good teams. Happened to them last year, and it happens to every good team, with almost no exceptions. 

Again, if you read Holly's book you will understand why Bill went 5-11 in 2000 with the team he inherited from Carroll. And not all of it was Carroll as the GM played a large role as well but suffice to say that Carroll took over a Super Bowl team and it got progressively worse each year he was there. The record looked only as good as it did because Parcells had built that SB team so it was able to win games on talent alone.

 

Tomlin inherited a Super Bowl team as well from Cowher and had a nice run for a few years but the Steelers have gotten worse and some of that is certainly the GM but also Tomlin as well. Like I said, players coaches don't have the longevity IMO.

 

In terms of Ryan, he may not have the SB ring or appearance but he had two straight AFCCG appearances his first two seasons which was great success for an org like the Jets but again his approach has worn thin and the team has been floundering now for four seasons. 

 

You keep mistaking my thoughts toward Seattle as being related to their two losses. It's not. It is the way the team has looked all season. Blew a two score lead vs Denver, needed late game heroics to beat the Redskins and got manhandled by Dallas at home. It is a culmination of games that prompted the thread. I by no means think they are toast but looking at them as the SB favorite six games in is a stretch. There are many teams playing better than them. And I think if adversity continues to mount, we will see how Carroll handles that with a team full of boisterous personalities.

 

I like Dallas a lot. Murray needs to stay healthy for them. He has always battled injures so hopefully this season he plays the whole way. D looks great too.

[Yehoodi]

Disagree to the bolded. Seattle has already beaten Green Bay and Denver at home. So, not "any good team." But yes, they are beatable.

 

you forgot to mention the lost to SD . . . so they are 2-2 against good teams . . . they are not 3-1 or 4-0 . . . which would indicate that they beat all comers or can control them . . . as they are 2-2 against a good them then its a coin flip whether they will win or lose . . . so to too Andy's point any good team can beat them . . . they are not showing dominance that we have seen from great teams in the past . . .

[Superman]

You keep mistaking my thoughts toward Seattle as being related to their two losses. It's not. It is the way the team has looked all season. Blew a two score lead vs Denver, needed late game heroics to beat the Redskins and got manhandled by Dallas at home. It is a culmination of games that prompted the thread. I by no means think they are toast but looking at them as the SB favorite six games in is a stretch. There are many teams playing better than them. And I think if adversity continues to mount, we will see how Carroll handles that with a team full of boisterous personalities.

 

Fair enough. But you didn't start this thread a week ago, you started it after a loss. I still think they're the NFC favorites because, despite yesterday's win, I think they'd still have the upperhand against Dallas in a playoff head to head, home or away. Anything can change over the next two and a half months, but that's how I feel today. They got pushed around, which isn't typical of them, and still only lost by a TD. One or two more plays in that game, and they win, and they have too many playmakers on both sides of the ball.

 

One question: Aside from Richard Sherman, who are the boisterous personalities on that roster?

[Superman]

you forgot to mention the lost to SD . . . so they are 2-2 against good teams . . . they are not 3-1 or 4-0 . . . which would indicate that they beat all comers or can control them . . . as they are 2-2 against a good them then its a coin flip whether they will win or lose . . . so to too Andy's point any good team can beat them . . . they are not showing dominance that we have seen from great teams in the past . . .

 

I didn't forget to mention; it just wasn't relevant. Andy said "any good team can beat Seattle in Seattle," and that's not true. I named two good teams that lost to them in Seattle this year. All we know is that Dallas can beat them in Seattle. 

[amfootball]

Fair enough. But you didn't start this thread a week ago, you started it after a loss. I still think they're the NFC favorites because, despite yesterday's win, I think they'd still have the upperhand against Dallas in a playoff head to head, home or away. Anything can change over the next two and a half months, but that's how I feel today. They got pushed around, which isn't typical of them, and still only lost by a TD. One or two more plays in that game, and they win, and they have too many playmakers on both sides of the ball.

 

One question: Aside from Richard Sherman, who are the boisterous personalities on that roster?

I would have started it even if they beat the Cowboys yesterday. They were outplayed at their own game at home. Bad sign for them IMO.

 

Many guys on Seattle like to tweet and talk not just Sherman. Doug Baldwin is very outspoken as well. He was fuming to the media after the game. But I think for Carroll it is more managing the locker room. If what Baldwin said is true and the team is not correcting its mistakes than Carroll needs to sort that out and quickly. 

[Superman]

I would have started it even if they beat the Cowboys yesterday. They were outplayed at their own game at home. Bad sign for them IMO.

 

Many guys on Seattle like to tweet and talk not just Sherman. Doug Baldwin is very outspoken as well. He was fuming to the media after the game. But I think for Carroll it is more managing the locker room. If what Baldwin said is true and the team is not correcting its mistakes than Carroll needs to sort that out and quickly. 

 

We'll see. I think Baldwin is fine, and what he said is fine. I don't think the Seahawks have any more tweeters or talkers than anyone else, they just happen to have the biggest tweeter and talker in the league, and I don't think it really matters.

[amfootball]

We'll see. I think Baldwin is fine, and what he said is fine. I don't think the Seahawks have any more tweeters or talkers than anyone else, they just happen to have the biggest tweeter and talker in the league, and I don't think it really matters.

It matters, see Jets.

 

But like I said, it is more about the locker room for Carroll.

[Yehoodi]

I didn't forget to mention; it just wasn't relevant. Andy said "any good team can beat Seattle in Seattle," and that's not true. I named two good teams that lost to them in Seattle this year. All we know is that Dallas can beat them in Seattle. 

 

Fair enough . . . I guess we view things somewhat different . . . the spirit of this thread was whether or not Seattle is the dominant team that the pundits were touting before the season started and after the big SB win . . . as we often find is that the media and fans and forums tout teams and some are the flavor of the month, or year if you will, then they fall back to the pack . . . 

 

The two Seattle wins are the first game of the season which I think the SB winner is whatever and 1 I believe, with the 1 loss being the NFL's decision to send Baltimore on the road, and as for them being home they are whatever and zero, never losing . . . and their second win they had in their hand but could not stop a nose bleed and it ended in a tie in regulation . . . so they have been beaten twice, won a game that is basically a shoe-in and a game that ended in a tie in regulation and went to OT where a coin flip has a factor in who ends up winning a game . . . hardly as dominate as one might think . . .

 

In the spirit of Andy's point I do not think it is necessary for a team to be 0-4 against good teams for his point, the fact that they have lost twice and there wins are a perennial win and from a game that ended in a tie in regulation. . . .   

[Yehoodi]

Fair enough. But you didn't start this thread a week ago, you started it after a loss. I still think they're the NFC favorites because, despite yesterday's win, I think they'd still have the upperhand against Dallas in a playoff head to head, home or away. Anything can change over the next two and a half months, but that's how I feel today. They got pushed around, which isn't typical of them, and still only lost by a TD. One or two more plays in that game, and they win, and they have too many playmakers on both sides of the ball.

 

One question: Aside from Richard Sherman, who are the boisterous personalities on that roster?

 

I do think that the coach should reel in the players . . . long before the sorry behind WR comment, he made the he hate me comment . . . if the coach allows a player to mouth off then he is equally responsible for allowing his players to act that way in regards to conduct relating to a game . . . so I include Carol in that list for his lack of action . . .

[dgambill]

The team has issues that can be exploited. All teams do. Perhaps NE/Indy fans think undefeated seasons are something to be expected since they are so used to seeing teams run through the regular season but fact is the most dominant teams of the 80s and 90s had losses....some even at home. I don't think this team is as good as the cowboys or 49ers of yester year so to expect them to go 19-0 seems flawed. What we did see is if u can win in the trenches and run the ball u can beat them. Honestly... What' do bullies hate the most?? Getting a taste of their own medicine. Pound them...beat on them. Smother them and it takes the fight out of them. Few teams have the players on OL or at TE/WR to do that...SD/DAL showed they have that. They can be beat. Teams like Den/NO/GB can beat them but they aren't as good of a matchup. It's why ARI/SF often split with them...as long as the don't allow themselves to get pushed around u can beat them. Not every time but they are easily beatable especially if they aren't preparing like champions or not playing with that chip they had last year. In the end if they are at home during the playoffs their opponents job gets that much harder.

[wesd2890]

I dont think people are giving the cowboys enough credit.. and i am not a cowboys fan.. or a seahawks fan. The cowboys have always had alot of talent but they never lived up to the hype. So far this year they have for once been playing well together

[Dr. Guildo]

The legend of boom is looking more like a dud because from what I have seen Sherman has been blown away by speedy receiver/ good route runners, and Wilson has looked pretty average when he has to throw the ball ore than 5 yards. Scrambling is when he shines.

[thedude]

They just lost, that's all. They played poorly. Also, as poorly as they played, they still had a chance to win it with under three minutes to go. Usually when a team plays as poorly as seattle did Sunday, they lose in a blow-out.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

I haven't had a chance to watch the game yet, we have it recorded.  Were the Cowboys able to contain Wilson in the pocket?  That's how we basically neutralized him in addition to keeping the time of possession 2/3rds of the time.

[Dustin]

If you're talking about why they started HGH testing, the owners have wanted it for years only to be blocked by the players union. The union finally relented and agreed to it in exchange for a much more lenient marijuana policy.

But why woukd the owners want it? It makes no sense. What PR is there to gain if a bunch of players get popped for it?

[Superman]

In the spirit of Andy's point I do not think it is necessary for a team to be 0-4 against good teams for his point, the fact that they have lost twice and there wins are a perennial win and from a game that ended in a tie in regulation. . . .   

 

I don't know how much interpretation it takes to understand Andy's post. He said "any good team." That's why I disagreed with him.

[Superman]

I do think that the coach should reel in the players . . . long before the sorry behind WR comment, he made the he hate me comment . . . if the coach allows a player to mouth off then he is equally responsible for allowing his players to act that way in regards to conduct relating to a game . . . so I include Carol in that list for his lack of action . . .

 

Meh. 

 

They won a Super Bowl with Richard Sherman talking mess. I don't think that has anything to do with what how the Seahawks played yesterday, and I don't think it has anything to do with whether they'll seriously contend this year. 

[amfootball]

The team has issues that can be exploited. All teams do. Perhaps NE/Indy fans think undefeated seasons are something to be expected since they are so used to seeing teams run through the regular season but fact is the most dominant teams of the 80s and 90s had losses....some even at home. I don't think this team is as good as the cowboys or 49ers of yester year so to expect them to go 19-0 seems flawed. What we did see is if u can win in the trenches and run the ball u can beat them. Honestly... What' do bullies hate the most?? Getting a taste of their own medicine. Pound them...beat on them. Smother them and it takes the fight out of them. Few teams have the players on OL or at TE/WR to do that...SD/DAL showed they have that. They can be beat. Teams like Den/NO/GB can beat them but they aren't as good of a matchup. It's why ARI/SF often split with them...as long as the don't allow themselves to get pushed around u can beat them. Not every time but they are easily beatable especially if they aren't preparing like champions or not playing with that chip they had last year. In the end if they are at home during the playoffs their opponents job gets that much harder.

The Patriots and Colts they are not. That is for sure.

 

My honest opinion is that we overrated Seattle big time based on the Super Bowl blow out. They were literally six inches away from losing the NFCCG game if Kaep put that ball six inches higher to Crabtree. Denver was a hot mess in that SB and it made Seattle seem much more dominant than they actually were all season. They have flaws like every other team and they have lost some key players like every other team. It remains to be seen if they can win their own division much less repeat.

[sweetsurrender]

Seattle hasn't even begun to struggle yet.  They've simply lost 2 games, and they lost 3 last year.

 

History says that prosperity is tough to handle, but the actual onset of erosion is tough to predict.  I do agree that Carroll will have a difficult time bringing order to the playground once the wave crests, but with an ascending QB who is also a strong leader, that day may be farther out than you are suggesting.

It seems as if the Cards and Niners are hungrier but for sure Seattle will be right there.

[lollygagger8]

I think the owners are making a big mistake. There are going to be a lor of positive tests. The NBA doesn't even test for marijuana. I can't figure out why the NFL would either

 

What's this NBA you speak of? 

[TAPLOOK]

It takes a special organization to withstand the constant pressure of being among the leagues best year after year. Check back in two or three years and see how Seattle is doing. 

[Qwiz]

Seattle will make the playoffs and still be in the thick of it by the end of the year.

[dgambill]

The Patriots and Colts they are not. That is for sure.

 

My honest opinion is that we overrated Seattle big time based on the Super Bowl blow out. They were literally six inches away from losing the NFCCG game if Kaep put that ball six inches higher to Crabtree. Denver was a hot mess in that SB and it made Seattle seem much more dominant than they actually were all season. They have flaws like every other team and they have lost some key players like every other team. It remains to be seen if they can win their own division much less repeat.

Lots of games come down to that...just like Wilson's TD hail mary he threw up there too. Seattle is beatable...just like everyone else in the nfl. Point is that a loss or two doesn't change the fact they are still SB contenders. When they are playing well they are the best team in football.....thats the point really. If everyone plays their A game....they win. They have the talent on the defensive side of the ball to control the game and the offense is a grind em up style offense with explosive plays mixed in. Seattle can literaly win a game on one side of the ball....and can sustain long droughts on offense because they don't give up points. What we are seeing is a team that isn't focused...isn't playing with that edge/chip on their shoulder. I think they are a team that once they get challenged will still rise up to answer it come the playoffs. They have that attitude...just right now they are trying to win on talent alone...once their spirit gets challenged they will answer back. That SB was 1-100. Literally you play that game 100 times that outcome was a one off....it could have went many many ways...but it went downhill for Denver...Seattle fed on it and it didnt get better. We saw a much more competitive game this year between the two...something I expected from the SB. This time Denver made mistakes that cost them...and Seattle handled that game for the most part but Denver showed fight to claw back. I honestly think Seattle are the bullies...and if you hit back...take it at them...you can beat them at their own game. That defense LOVES you to throw...be finesse...it plays right into them...but if you smack them in the mouth running the ball....they can't be the bullies...and that changes everything.

[Yehoodi]

I don't know how much interpretation it takes to understand Andy's post. He said "any good team." That's why I disagreed with him.

 

Andy used the word "can" not "will" ;), with former meaning able to do so, to indicate a possibility and so on . . . the latter means as a matter of fact . . . given Seattle's record overall and at home they are 1-1-1 with the last "1" requiring overtime to get it into the win column . . . so to date they are in the middle of the road at home against good teams . . . with that said not sure what is wrong with one indicating that any good team is capable of beating Seattle at home . . . surely to say any good team will beat Seattle sits on a different footing . . . 

 

Seattle to date is not like the mid 2000s Colts and Pats or 2011 Packers, all of who essentially beat all comers  . . .  this years Seattle team is not on that level, and after having a great history at home in recent years there is a chink in their armor at home, they were taken to overtime in one game and lost another . . . and given that happen at the feet of a good team, then it perfectly reasonable and understandable to see that one can see that any good team has a possibility of beating them at home . . . you can disagree with this premise, which is fine, but their record to date would indicate otherwise  . . .    

[Yehoodi]

Meh. 

 

They won a Super Bowl with Richard Sherman talking mess. I don't think that has anything to do with what how the Seahawks played yesterday, and I don't think it has anything to do with whether they'll seriously contend this year. 

 

no I do not think that it effected them yesterday . . . the only problem they may run into down the road is sometimes talkers can easily get frustrated when things are not going well . . . and perhaps can take a bad penalty or what not . . .

 

I am still interested in seeing how the team handles things of things do not go as well as they might expect . . . they are not as bad as the Rex Ryan Jets, but they were talkers and when things started to fall apart, the house of cards came down on them . . . time will tell if things get tight for Seattle and see how they perform with adversity . . .

[B~Town]

What really sticks out is there CB play it's just not good teams are passing on them at will Burley is now there number 2 guy . They still have great LBer's D Line and safety's on that D there special teams is stellar . There offense never was great more ball control score some and let the D win games . What I can't figure out is why they are not running Lynch more he's still getting good yards per attempt even behind that crap line and using that short passing game that works for them .

[amfootball]

no I do not think that it effected them yesterday . . . the only problem they may run into down the road is sometimes talkers can easily get frustrated when things are not going well . . . and perhaps can take a bad penalty or what not . . .

 

I am still interested in seeing how the team handles things of things do not go as well as they might expect . . . they are not as bad as the Rex Ryan Jets, but they were talkers and when things started to fall apart, the house of cards came down on them . . . time will tell if things get tight for Seattle and see how they perform with adversity . . .

To the bolded- that is why I am not big on players coaches. Eventually the cards do coming crashing in as every team faces adversity and players need to be reeled in.

[ram29jackson]

Ehhh, I'm not giving up on them yet. If there's any team that can overcome the odds I think Seattle is it. The division games will be close, as usual, but I don't think Arizona is for real and the 49ers could be facing issues from their own lockerroom if things start getting tough. That loss at home for them though is shocking, but Dallas seems to be playing out of their minds lately. Excitement and talent trumps discipline and talent every once in awhile.

 

says what ? last year was the only successful year they've ever had. They will go back to their mediocre nothingness they've been the last 40 years. They were a one hit wonder

[Qwiz]

says what ? last year was the only successful year they've ever had. They will go back to their mediocre nothingness they've been the last 40 years. They were a one hit wonder

The last 40 years have nothing to do with how they move forward. Remember that year when they had a losing record and were in the playoffs? And beat the Saints with Whitehurst at QB? That was the start of it and they have been building a solid roster through the Draft for years.

[DougDew]

According to Will Carroll, the HGH testing is a joke.

That's probably true. 

 

About Seattle.  They get kudos for having a defense that dominates from being faster and more physical than their opponent.  And...they get kudos for having built the team via mid round draft picks.  Just adding those two thoughts together...

 

A team where its mid round draft picks are faster and stronger than the competition?  And what's the story....because of great drafting and coaching?   Yeah right.

 

I think of the losses last year and this year, they have been to Indy, SD, Dallas, and I think Arizona (can't think of the other).  All those teams have a real quarterback with a real down field passing game, unlike their direct competition, SF.

[thedude]

Seattle will make the playoffs and still be in the thick of it by the end of the year.

Let's see where everyone is and how they are playing in January.

[Qwiz]

Let's see where everyone is and how they are playing in January.

Exactly. I don't dig early graves for teams, especially good ones, unless you're the Jaguars or Raiders lol.

[ram29jackson]

The last 40 years have nothing to do with how they move forward. Remember that year when they had a losing record and were in the playoffs? And beat the Saints with Whitehurst at QB? That was the start of it and they have been building a solid roster through the Draft for years.

 

 

building a solid roster for years ? they've only been good the last 3 years. That roster will be meaningless as this season passes. They aren't making the playoffs this year and even if they happen to,they will lose in the first round.

[thedude]

QwizBoy, on 15 Oct 2014 - 2:47 PM, said:

The last 40 years have nothing to do with how they move forward. Remember that year when they had a losing record and were in the playoffs? And beat the Saints with Whitehurst at QB? That was the start of it and they have been building a solid roster through the Draft for years.

I don't remember that game, but I remember the one when they beat the Saints in the playoffs with a losing record with Hasselbeck playing QB. 

[thedude]

building a solid roster for years ? they've only been good the last 3 years. That roster will be meaningless as this season passes. They aren't making the playoffs this year and even if they happen to,they will lose in the first round.

Who's this?  Jimmy The Greek, or the Amazing Kreskin?