RolandDeschain":gxd3jnqh said:
BASF":gxd3jnqh said:
RolandDeschain":gxd3jnqh said:
Here's USA Today calling out Carroll for the same crap being discussed in this thread, by the way:
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2020/01/pete-c ... ks-packers
That article is ridiculously stupid. If you want to sit here and critique Pete for wanting to establish the run, do not do it with the Packers game as your example. The "writer" of the article even admits he doesn't know what establishing the run means. The Packers had one less rush attempt in their first series than the Seahawks had in the first half. The fact is that the difference between the Packers this year and the past couple of seasons, is that they focused on defense in free agency (this is what finally got Holmgren to the Super Bowl in Green Bay) and they made more of an emphasis on the running game than leaning on Rodgers. Sound familiar? Sounds like what Carroll is getting dragged for.
I'm pretty sure the not understanding what it means to establish the run thing is tongue-in-cheek, which you didn't pick up on.
Take your pick of games, the point is valid and demonstrated frequently throughout each year. You won't agree though, because you'd have already long since seen it and understood it and not disagreed to begin with otherwise.
The problem is that you are going off feelings, while I am actually looking at the play by play's of those games and watching highlights to see what actually happened. The games that your side keeps bringing up is the divisional losses and looking back at those games, the only one that fits into the run heavy "tried to establish the run" is the 2016 loss to the Falcons, where Rawls was featured in the first drive and we actually scored a TD. All the other games had maybe one drive where the series was run heavy. One.
If you want to go by the Cowboys game last year, I agree we tried to run more than I would have liked, however, what did you expect? We were far better running the ball than passing last season. As much as they tried to say that Baldwin was healthy, he never looked right and his subsequent retirement would back up the fact that he was not going to make an impact in that game. Vannett was overrrated and the three and four receivers are not impact players.
We were a deeply flawed team in the past two seasons and it is only because Carroll is as good as he is that we were in the playoffs at all. My problem with all this, "Carroll is holding us back to the point that we are always down big at the half," is each of you are focusing on not scoring enough points. If you were bringing up the fact that our defensive scheme has been figured out and that these teams that have two weeks to prepare for the personnel we have that season are shredding our defenses early and then hanging on to beat us, I'd be right there with you, but no. You are beating the wrong drum.