sc85sis wrote: Tech Worlds wrote:
sc85sis wrote:[quote="Tech Worlds"][quote="SeaTown81"][quote="Tech Worlds"]I didnt vote Gus because I think Gus very well may be Nick Holt.
Why? Because the defense wasn't awesome the one year he was here with Mora?
I get that a good portion of the defense's success needs to be attributed to Carroll. Obviously. But Bradley isn't some schlep who isn't contributing to it at all, and just riding along Pete's coat tails. A lot of people in the league like him, and liked him prior to him coaching under PC. Bradley deserves some credit. He's a young coach growing into the league. All young coaches develop their identity and learn from the coaches they coach under. It shouldn't always be taken as a negative.
On top of that, I don't think the question of "Is it Carroll or Bradley" matters as much to us as it would an outside team bringing Gus in as their HC. For another team that matters much more, as they are asking him to come in and built a team for them. Here, you are only asking him to continue what you already have. And I don't see why he wouldn't be able to do that. Especially after learning from Pete for a few years. Cable, on the other hand, I don't see the same room for continuity. On the offensive line, sure. With the rest of the offense, maybe. But unless he's able to keep the same coaches on defense for a considerable amount of time, I don't see it. You likely have an entirely new set of defensive coaches, new scheme, etc in a couple years.
To me, Gus Bradley has the potential to be a disciple of Carroll. Tom Cable already has his own personal identity. It works like gangbusters for the o-line. But when applied to an entire team it is actually very different from Pete Carroll's. I'm not sure some realize that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just very different from what Pete has built and is winning with. And that's why I'd go with Gus. To me, he represents the best chance at continuity.
You may be correct. Who knows. We thought that about Holt too when we brought him in.
I like Cable because he did ok in Oakland and it was stupid of them to fire him.
One major difference I see is that Holt didn't call plays during the game at USC. He led the defensive game planning, but Pete was the play caller. That's not the case with Bradley.[/quote]
Just curious.. How do you know this? I am not saying you are incorrect, I just want to know how you know this as fact.[/quote]
It was well known. That's one of the reasons Holt accepted the offer to go to Washington.
Edit to add: I perhaps shouldn't say that Holt never called any plays, but Pete had final say, and it was known he did a lot of the play calling on D. I have a DVD of Pete mic'ed up at the Rose Bowl, and he's calling plays throughout. Holt may also have called some, but it was definitely Pete's baby, so to speak.[/quote]
No, I think you misunderstood. How do you know for a fact that Pete does not call the plays now, here in Seattle.
I mean, if he doesn't call the offensive plays, nor the defensive plays, just what the hell does he do on gameday? Cheer?