Our SB winning formula is toast

[chris98251]

To win he must churn the roster of age and salary, then he has to replace those players with up and comers that will eventually match their quality, hunger and aggressiveness works at first before savvy and experience.

The problem is do we have the evaluators, Pete does not know the players in college like he did coming in, we are now back to a more traditional process rather then a intimate one. We will see how good John and his scouts are this draft, we can't afford to miss with so few picks, we don't have the luxury of hoping to make a project work, We need as much plug and play as we can get as well as last years players to make the next step up.

 

[Uncle Si]

The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.

Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.

So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.

I agree with all except the "young and cheap" part. They were young and cheap because the team got really lucky in a few drafts.

That can't be the "formula"

Seymour is hitting the right point... the team's failures in recent drafts has left them little choice in who to keep now

Maybe, I think John and especially Pete know how to draft defense..........it's why most of our draft picks after those amazing early drafts have succeeded on the defensive side of the ball, and not so much offensive.

So IMO we can get young again on defense, honestly I don't think we have a choice with Pete as coach. As I've said before, has there ever been a REALLY great old defense?

I mean, if the plan is to get back to basics and run the ball and play great D? Then continuing to spend money on aging vets and underperforming FA's is a recipe for more of the past three years.

2001 Ravens maybe? they weren't very young. good mix really. only 1 super bowl which brings it back to the original point
edit. found it https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/2000_roster.htm

 

[Seymour]

The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.

Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.

So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.

That is a bit of cause vs effect argument there IMO. I say the cause is the lack of good enough drafting to maintain the formula, ie toast until we resolve to better drafting (rather than "we just stopped following it") is the #1 reason, and you say the cause is "we just stopped."

 

[mrt144]

The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.

Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.

So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.

I agree with all except the "young and cheap" part. They were young and cheap because the team got really lucky in a few drafts.

That can't be the "formula"

Seymour is hitting the right point... the team's failures in recent drafts has left them little choice in who to keep now

Maybe, I think John and especially Pete know how to draft defense..........it's why most of our draft picks after those amazing early drafts have succeeded on the defensive side of the ball, and not so much offensive.

So IMO we can get young again on defense, honestly I don't think we have a choice with Pete as coach. As I've said before, has there ever been a REALLY great old defense?

I mean, if the plan is to get back to basics and run the ball and play great D? Then continuing to spend money on aging vets and underperforming FA's is a recipe for more of the past three years.

2001 Ravens maybe? they weren't very young. I think Woodson was their starting safety at like 35 years old

I was curious about this as well - to me it seems you can have one or two aged vets, especially at safety and still build an incredible portfolio of defensive talent.

Case in point John Lynch was 31 as SS for the 2002 Bucs and the oldest player on defense. I'm sure if we go down the list of great defenses, there are probably 2-3 vet starters over the age of 30 MAX.

 

[Uncle Si]

i was shocked when i looked that up and saw Reed wasnt even on the team until two years later. one of the Greatest safeties of all time (imo) missed the greatest defense of all time by 2 years

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.

Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.

So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.

That is a bit of cause vs effect argument there IMO. I say the cause is the lack of good enough drafting to maintain the formula, ie toast until we resolve to better drafting (rather than "we just stopped following it") is the #1 reason, and you say the cause is "we just stopped."

I'm just correcting your Subject Line.

The formula isn't broken, or "toast." Our FO just decided to stop following the formula, and the reasons are the things you're talking about.

Again, why Pete's going back to his formula. Will it work? Idk, it's pretty broken right now, not sure he and John can fix it, at least not in the two years they both have left on their contracts. Turning a roster over and getting back to the SB would take another 2-3 drafts like we had when they got here.....................WITH less picks.

 

[Seymour]

To win he must churn the roster of age and salary, then he has to replace those players with up and comers that will eventually match their quality, hunger and aggressiveness works at first before savvy and experience.

The problem is do we have the evaluators, Pete does not know the players in college like he did coming in, we are now back to a more traditional process rather then a intimate one. We will see how good John and his scouts are this draft, we can't afford to miss with so few picks, we don't have the luxury of hoping to make a project work, We need as much plug and play as we can get as well as last years players to make the next step up.

Bingo. Right where I've been heading too.

I also agree Pete's strength being D that that is the place to cut and build, and pay the offense to fill the holes to get run game back. This is the exact opposite of what we've done the last 3 years in paying the D far more $$. Pete relied on Cable (and Prob. Bevell to some degree) to build the offense. That could also improve with new hires so I'm not saying our total outlook is toast at all either.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

 

[Seymour]

The formula isn't toast, the FO stopped following the formula.

The formula was nasty young hungry cheap defense, physical ball control run game and dynamic QB that could run around and make plays when needed.

Now it's old expensive defense that isn't very hungry anymore, no run game and expensive QB that can still run around and make plays but now HAS to make plays or we lose.

So that's what Pete's doing, trying to get back to the right formula.

That is a bit of cause vs effect argument there IMO. I say the cause is the lack of good enough drafting to maintain the formula, ie toast until we resolve to better drafting (rather than "we just stopped following it") is the #1 reason, and you say the cause is "we just stopped."

I'm just correcting your Subject Line.

The formula isn't broken, or "toast." Our FO just decided to stop following the formula, and the reasons are the things you're talking about.

Again, why Pete's going back to his formula. Will it work? Idk, it's pretty broken right now, not sure he and John can fix it, at least not in the two years they both have left on their contracts. Turning a roster over and getting back to the SB would take another 2-3 drafts like we had when they got here.....................WITH less picks.

I won't argue your "correction" other than that is an opinion not a fact.

Other than that, I agree on the rest including not thinking Pete has time to fix. If he does, he will double his legendary status IMO.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.

 

[Seymour]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

Disagree. I don't believe "the formula" was a pre conceived plan at all. It just shook out that way through great drafting and now we look back and see how we built that team we can look at where we deviated and use that as at least 1 solution to get back.

 

[mrt144]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.

I'd argue that since Peyton Manning, many teams have not tried to - several teams have tried to take shortcuts to offensive stability and efficiency like the Colts with Luck without understanding the underpinnings - as good as Peyton was, those teams in general were also just plain better without even regarding coaching. And it hasn't been successful in aggregate, only in spot situations where the defense rose to the occasion almost as an anomaly. See the DVOA of Superbowl champs versus the DVOA of playoff participants.

 

[Seymour]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

Disagree. I don't believe "the formula" was a pre conceived plan at all. It just shook out that way through great drafting and now we look back and see how we built that team we can look at where we deviated and use that as at least 1 solution to get back.

Also, that article lists the same 2 top reasons I do...Drafting, and #2...the play.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.

I'd argue that since Peyton Manning, many teams have not tried to - several teams have tried to take shortcuts to offensive stability and efficiency like the Colts with Luck without understanding the underpinnings - as good as Peyton was, those teams in general were also just plain better without even regarding coaching. And it hasn't been successful in aggregate, only in spot situations where the defense rose to the occasion almost as an anomaly. See the DVOA of Superbowl champs versus the DVOA of playoff participants.

Yes, if you have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady as your QB, you can veer away from this formula. But even those two QB's had good to great run games behind them..........which made them even more lethal.

Very few times throughout NFL history has a QB completely carried his team to a Lombardi. It's about balance, on both sides of the ball.

That's my point, it's not a secret, and it's something EVERY team strives for.

 

[mrt144]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

It was the mistaken belief that some plan was responsible for getting us to the SB.

The thing that got us to the SB was having great players. MANY great players.

You could argue that having a HOF free safety, HOF-quality strong safety, one of the best MLBs in the game, HOF-quality RB, HOF corner, and tremendously deep DL almost requires a SB, with even a competent QB.

In fact, there was an article in ESPN today that points to all of that. Here:http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...hy-the-seahawks-havent-won-another-super-bowl

Everything I have been complaining about for some time.

And the belief that the FO has some secret formula that is what gets us to the SB is laughable. Review the reasons and you will see that every single element is a direct result of bad FO decisions.
(Exception: Injury issue)

You could easily argue that with all the talent we have, the FO held this team back. But some of you want to believe that some formula by the same coaches and FO that turned one of the better talented teams into barely a wildcard team is going to bring us back to the SB?

Well I hope you are right. Because the track record seems to indicate otherwise.

I don't think "run the ball and play great defense" is anyone's secret.

It's the oldest plan in football, it's what everyone tries to do well. Because that's how you win consistently, you control the clock, wear down the other team by running................and play great defense.

It's not rocket science what Pete's trying to do, but that IS a formula. And it's one he's been VERY successful at for his entire career.

So I do think we can get that formula back, just don't know if Pete and John can do it in the two years they have left. Or heck, even want to do it here.

I'd argue that since Peyton Manning, many teams have not tried to - several teams have tried to take shortcuts to offensive stability and efficiency like the Colts with Luck without understanding the underpinnings - as good as Peyton was, those teams in general were also just plain better without even regarding coaching. And it hasn't been successful in aggregate, only in spot situations where the defense rose to the occasion almost as an anomaly. See the DVOA of Superbowl champs versus the DVOA of playoff participants.

Yes, if you have Peyton Manning or Tom Brady as your QB, you can veer away from this formula. But even those two QB's had good to great run games behind them..........which made them even more lethal.

Very few times throughout NFL history has a QB completely carried his team to a Lombardi. It's about balance, on both sides of the ball.

That's my point, it's not a secret, and it's something EVERY team strives for.

And we could go around in circles vis a vis Peyton helping his RBs output, sure, but if we look at a team as a holistic entity - those teams were simply plain better and even though not fully balanced, certainly more so than other iterations that seemingly try to fling a QB at the wall and see if he sticks and is the entire focal point of the team, like Matt Stafford.

 

[jammerhawk]

Is our Super bowl winning formula to draft a bunch of great players and pay them nothing? Why haven’t other teams tried this?

Lol!

Ascerbic, succinct, and funny.

Our team's formula for success has involved running the ball and playing tough D. Not being able to run the ball or stop other teams on 3rd down really takes away from the formula. The team has talent on the roster but has been hamstrung with key injuries and a woefully weak OLine.

Pete and John bought the BS from Cable that he could fix the running game and the OLine. Pete even let Sherman Smith go so Cable could be free to screw things up worse than they were. The team brought in 11 RBs for last season to try and find the guys to suit Cable and the the running game was reduced to almost the worst ever in league history. The team axed a good RB who had immediate success in Baltimore and the OLine looked worse than ever run blocking and pass protection depsite the addition of Pro Bowl Quality LT. It was crappy coaching and uncertain lines of authority combine with a frequently clueless OC who's authority was diminshed b/c of Cable's meddling. Pete needs to wear this so does John but changes have been made and there is some raw talent here that Solari can hopefully coach up on the OLine. The deadwood at RB will be jettisoned and the D will get younger and hungier. It won't be an impossible fix to return the team to defensive dominance, fixing the running game will be the challenge.

The formula is not toast despite the cap issues but it is clear the trades for other team's sometime stars ( Harvin and Graham) haven't worked and should not happen again.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

And we could go around in circles vis a vis Peyton helping his RBs output, sure, but if we look at a team as a holistic entity - those teams were simply plain better and even though not fully balanced, certainly more so than other iterations that seemingly try to fling a QB at the wall and see if he sticks and is the entire focal point of the team, like Matt Stafford.

You just made my point for me, balance............and remember for all the success Peyton had in Indy, he only won one championship. Wasn't until he again had a great defense and good run game that he won another.

You can get as creative and throw happy as you want, but in the end the only true constants in the game of football are balance on offense and great defense.

We just saw it in the SB, Brady threw for almost 600 yards, and lost. Jenkins took away the Patriot running backs by spying them, and made the Pats one dimensional.

 

[Seymour]

The 'Formula' was not a formula at all.

I need to clarify this because there are a couple of things at work in verbiage here and I hate misunderstandings.

When I say "the formula" I'm refering to the method we used to get the resources to build the championship roster. I am not talking about "the plan", or "the blueprint" to the actual team. Ie....run first and young, hungry, fast defense. There is no reason to bring that in IMO as that will stay the same as long as Pete is here.

And to that, I say we did not plan "the formula", it shook out that way through great drafting and it worked. Starting with what worked, and using what didn't to learn from, is a great way to return to power. But not the only way either.

 

[Uncle Si]

Is our Super bowl winning formula to draft a bunch of great players and pay them nothing? Why haven’t other teams tried this?

Lol!

Ascerbic, succinct, and funny.

Our team's formula for success has involved running the ball and playing tough D. Not being able to run the ball or stop other teams on 3rd down really takes away from the formula. The team has talent on the roster but has been hamstrung with key injuries and a woefully weak OLine.

Pete and John bought the BS from Cable that he could fix the running game and the OLine. Pete even let Sherman Smith go so Cable could be free to screw things up worse than they were. The team brought in 11 RBs for last season to try and find the guys to suit Cable and the the running game was reduced to almost the worst ever in league history. The team axed a good RB who had immediate success in Baltimore and the OLine looked worse than ever run blocking and pass protection depsite the addition of Pro Bowl Quality LT. It was crappy coaching and uncertain lines of authority combine with a frequently clueless OC who's authority was diminshed b/c of Cable's meddling. Pete needs to wear this so does John but changes have been made and there is some raw talent here that Solari can hopefully coach up on the OLine. The deadwood at RB will be jettisoned and the D will get younger and hungier. It won't be an impossible fix to return the team to defensive dominance, fixing the running game will be the challenge.

The formula is not toast despite the cap issues but it is clear the trades for other team's sometime stars ( Harvin and Graham) haven't worked and should not happen again.

agreed on all points. The Harvin and Graham trades were so confusing because they did not exemplify the team strengths. you could make an argument that if used correctly both COULD have.. but thats not quite happened either

 

[mrt144]

And we could go around in circles vis a vis Peyton helping his RBs output, sure, but if we look at a team as a holistic entity - those teams were simply plain better and even though not fully balanced, certainly more so than other iterations that seemingly try to fling a QB at the wall and see if he sticks and is the entire focal point of the team, like Matt Stafford.

You just made my point for me, balance............and remember for all the success Peyton had in Indy, he only won one championship. Wasn't until he again had a great defense and good run game that he won another.

You can get as creative and throw happy as you want, but in the end the only true constants in the game of football are balance on offense and great defense.

We just saw it in the SB, Brady threw for almost 600 yards, and lost. Jenkins took away the Patriot running backs by spying them, and made the Pats one dimensional.

I am agreeing with you, and have been, yes.