This team loses way too often due to coaching mistakes

[BirdsCommaAngry]

All teams lose to coaching mistakes. You're just saying we lose too often. Every fan-base, minus the more reasonable Patriots fans, probably feel that way.

 

[Scorpion05]

After watching Rex Ryan for years here in NY, and watching the Jags, it’s just a mindset by defensive minded head coaches. They see offenses as getting in the way of the game plan. So he’s never going to let Russell sling it all day unless it’s absolutely necessary

That gameplan against the Cowboys was extremely conservative, almost Jason Garrett or Mike McCarthy like. We played like we were trying to outlast them. With defensive minded head coaches, they RARELY have a QB of Wilson’s stature. People always say “well can you imagine if the 2010 Jets or the Jaguars had a QB??? That’s the problem, these coaches are conservative by nature and won’t invest or lean too much on their offense. I almost feel sorry for Russ in the sense that even with a good running game, he’s still asked to work with an offense that the team doesn’t heavily invest in.

Baldwin, Lockett, and Penny, our three most dynamic skill position players were under-utilized in this game, and that’s a shame

 

[BASF]

He's a hell of a coach, one of the best in the league. Just seems like his stubborn nature cost him in this game.
That being said, it's on the players to make the plays, period.

Of everything being posted, this is the most accurate. In the end, their players outplayed our players. Their front seven dominated our mostly average and injured offensive line. It is hard to make adjustments work when their linemen are playing four and five yards in your backfield. The quick passing game that so many people here whine about us not having requires the line to open up passing lanes. When their D-Line is pushing your linemen around consistently (if you didn't see this in game, check your eyesight) those passing lanes are not there.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

After watching Rex Ryan for years here in NY, and watching the Jags, it’s just a mindset by defensive minded head coaches. They see offenses as getting in the way of the game plan. So he’s never going to let Russell sling it all day unless it’s absolutely necessary

That gameplan against the Cowboys was extremely conservative, almost Jason Garrett or Mike McCarthy like. We played like we were trying to outlast them. With defensive minded head coaches, they RARELY have a QB of Wilson’s stature. People always say “well can you imagine if the 2010 Jets or the Jaguars had a QB??? That’s the problem, these coaches are conservative by nature and won’t invest or lean too much on their offense. I almost feel sorry for Russ in the sense that even with a good running game, he’s still asked to work with an offense that the team doesn’t heavily invest in.

Baldwin, Lockett, and Penny, our three most dynamic skill position players were under-utilized in this game, and that’s a shame

Poor Russ, all he gets to do is go to SB's, Pro Bowls, playoffs every year, play for a top 2-3 organization, make top QB money and throw for 35 TD's. WHY GOD WHY!!??

 

[Mad Dog]

While I agree that the Dallas Gameplan wasn't the best in the history of the NFL, the view that Pete loses way too many games due to his mistakes is a myopic narrative. There are 30 other fan bases that feel the exact same way about their coaches. Largely because fans can't recognize the difference between a bad outcome and coaching negligence.

Was the gameplan a mistake in hindsight? I guess so, we lost. Would an alternate gameplan worked out better? Not necessarily.

One of Pete's qualities that makes him such a good coach is his belief in his players. He believed the OL could get the run game going when the rest of us didn't. It burned him. But many other games that belief has led to amazing comebacks. His players play hard for him precisely because of that optimism and belief. Look at a hard ass coach like Mike Zimmer. That team underachieved badly because Zimmer shows no faith at times. If the coach doesn't believe the guys are getting it done, the guys don't believe either.

Pete is not Belichek. So far no coach has entered that pantheon. But he's definitely in the next tier. And ranting about that coaching tier is pretty silly since generally every other coach is worse.

There were lots of reasons we lost to the Cowboys. Gameplan was one of them. But we won 10 games this year and gameplan was also one of the reasons in each of those victories too. You can't ignore victories and only look at losses.

 

[Hockey Guy]

We lose 1 playoff game where adjustments could've been made earlier even though we were winning & now we lose waaaaaaaay too many games due to coaching mistakes?

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

 

[johnnyfever]

The team only lost by 2 points and it was the D that failed to stop Dallas’ O. Meanwhile our O was regrettably defensible by being predictable. Our O seemed unable to convert faced with critical situations.

Credit needs to be given to the Dallas D which had a lot of answers all game to our O. To me the pass D failed to hold them down and that was the difference. It is lazy analysis to my mind to blame the game plan when the pass attemptnumbers were higher than you might think.

Couple things-

All the cowboys did for 3 quarters is stack the box to stop the run. Not really a lot of answers, just one, and we didn't adjust to take advantage.

2- by the end of the game passing attempts looked better, but by quarter, they were not. Only finally in the 4th did we begin frequent pass attempts. This skewed the total to appear balanced, as well as saw success and scoring.

My point is adjustments should have been made at halftime. If they were, we would probably be playing the rams this weekend.

I am good with Pete and schotty, and hope pete coaches here until he retires, but he did make a mistake in sticking to a plan that clearly wasn't working in this game. I agree with the OP, this loss was mostly a gameplan and playcalling error.

 

[chris98251]

Well everyone next season will get to see how things are adjusted, everyone is going to bring that game strategy on defense till we show we can beat it.

Some teams won't have the personal to do it effectively like the Cowboys, their LB's were the difference in making that work.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Can we get to the Super Bowl? Yes, is it likely? No, not based on what I've seen from the Seahawks since 2015. Pete had several advantages afforded to him that allowed us to push for the Super Bowl that are no longer in play. It is either you're innovating, or you're getting left behind, and unfortunately Pete is in the later group. Carroll is firmly placed in late Holmgren territory. A once brilliant coach that lost his edge, and stagnated. A Carroll led team is a 10-6, 9-7 sort of deal with a quick exit from the playoffs. I mean, I'll take it over having a Gus Bradley, or Hue Jackson figure coaching this team, that being said it is frustrating seeing Russell Wilson's abilities being squandered.

What innovation has Bill Belichick brought to the NFL over his career? Other then just being an INSANELY detailed savant that demands perfection in how he wants his schemes executed day in and day out, practice to practice and game to game from every single person in the building...........and that gives his teams a better chance of winning because they out prepare, make less mistakes and out execute their opponents.

People are too quick to jump on the jocks of the new flavor of "innovators." Andy Reid is considered an offensive genius innovator, zero SB's. Everyone wants the next Sean McVay, zero SB's. Kyle Shanahan? Went 4-12 this year.

Pete has said it himself many times, the rules may change but football is still football. Preparation, practice, heart, size, physicality, athleticism, and a coach that knows how to put it all together and win.

That's Pete, if you didn't see that he can still do that this year with a young unproven raw roster with less talent then most of our opponents, then you weren't paying attention.

Bill Belicheck is actually pretty crafty as a head coach. Unlike Pete he has the ability to adapt and improvise. He may not be an innovator per say, but he is quick to grab the innovations, and plays from other teams and implement them into his schemes. Bill Belicheck is constantly adapting, and evolving. He isn't beholden to one scheme or philosophy. He knows how to attack you from multiple different angles. One game he'll come out looking like Andy Reid is coaching, and the next it'll look like a Schottenheimer, run it up your gut special, and impose your will on others. He adapts the personnel to fit his players strengths and weaknesses. No two Patriot teams look alike in their approach.

This is Carroll's greatest weakness, especially on offense. He is rigid with his approach, and he refuses to adapt, and evolve. We're using a passing offense that looks straight out of the 70s, pre west coast offense.

Mark my words, under Pete Carroll we will never get a SuperBowl, ever again, period. He has peaked, and now he's just another guy. We'll get consistently 10 wins, maybe 9 in an off year, but it will be one and done, or like this season, a straight up loss in the first game. He is a stubborn fool who refuses to see his short comings, and would rather lose his way, than win with another approach.

I'm frustrated. Carroll squandered one of the best teams of all time, and what we've been witnessing is a slow decline into mediocrity. This is post 2005 Holmgren we're dealing with now, and it is as plain as the day to see. People talk about the 2000 Ravens, and 1985 Bears, the Seahawks were right up there with them. The biggest difference is that we didn't have Dilfer, or and oft injured McMahon as our Quarterbacks. Instead we had a Quarterback that while flawed, and unconventional was one of the most efficient QB's of all time, and has been at least a top 10 QB since his rookie year. Dilfer and McMahon? Career journeyman.

 

[jammerhawk]

Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint, negative as it may be.

What you saw this season was a team in transition from a team with a handful of defensive stars who were often injured and expensive observers of a younger team hamstrung by the bloated salaries of these injured stars. The team transitioned pretty well making the playoffs by returning to the things that had brought them success in the past. They still need to improve on D. However. Yep, simply a stubborn determination to run the ball allowed a successful transition. The national media had to chow down on a lot of crow with their 4-12 and 5-11 predictions. Don’t for a second think that the KC game wasn’t impressive.

Was it a coaching mistake to continue to try to do what got them into the playoffs both in the past and this season? Of course it was, at least arguably when they found they couldn’t succeed pounding the ball as Dallas had an answer for them with their exceptional LB play. So then the mistake if there was one was not transitioning to a psssing based attack until the second half which is exactly what they did. The team did pass more on O than they ran in that game. check the game book summary, they also passed more in the second half. It was the first half that was the frustrating part of the Dallas loss.

As I mentioned earlier here the the team lost by just 2 lousy points and it wasn’t the O that’s responsible for the L. To me blaming coaching mistakes is not the true reason for the loss of this game. By doing that you fail to acknowledge that Dallas was well prepared and does have a quality D that had answers for the Hawks in the first half. No loss is ever a happy result but you have to be encouraged by the direction of our team.

Pete is a great coach, he deserved to be in the discussion for Coach of the Year this season. I’m not buying into the negative viewpoints. I think the team will be a contender again and soon. Changes are being made and more will come. I watch and hope to see a change of direction from the Special Teams coaching, the strength and conditioning crew has been moved out. There will be more changes.

 

[BASF]

Bill Belicheck is actually pretty crafty as a head coach. Unlike Pete he has the ability to adapt and improvise. He may not be an innovator per say, but he is quick to grab the innovations, and plays from other teams and implement them into his schemes. Bill Belicheck is constantly adapting, and evolving. He isn't beholden to one scheme or philosophy. He knows how to attack you from multiple different angles. One game he'll come out looking like Andy Reid is coaching, and the next it'll look like a Schottenheimer, run it up your gut special, and impose your will on others. He adapts the personnel to fit his players strengths and weaknesses. No two Patriot teams look alike in their approach.

This is Carroll's greatest weakness, especially on offense. He is rigid with his approach, and he refuses to adapt, and evolve. We're using a passing offense that looks straight out of the 70s, pre west coast offense.

Mark my words, under Pete Carroll we will never get a SuperBowl, ever again, period. He has peaked, and now he's just another guy. We'll get consistently 10 wins, maybe 9 in an off year, but it will be one and done, or like this season, a straight up loss in the first game. He is a stubborn fool who refuses to see his short comings, and would rather lose his way, than win with another approach.

I'm frustrated. Carroll squandered one of the best teams of all time, and what we've been witnessing is a slow decline into mediocrity. This is post 2005 Holmgren we're dealing with now, and it is as plain as the day to see. People talk about the 2000 Ravens, and 1985 Bears, the Seahawks were right up there with them. The biggest difference is that we didn't have Dilfer, or and oft injured McMahon as our Quarterbacks. Instead we had a Quarterback that while flawed, and unconventional was one of the most efficient QB's of all time, and has been at least a top 10 QB since his rookie year. Dilfer and McMahon? Career journeyman.

Respect you as a poster Spin, but at this point you are basically whining that we are not the Patriots or Steelers. What you are describing is the reality of the salary cap in football. Teams can longer dominate with rosters that are stacked for years on end. Each team has to retool their rosters and if you think that the roster retooling done by our team this past season with the record we ended up with isn't above the actual talent level on the field, I don't know what to tell you. That roster with say 98% of the other coaches in the league don't win more than six games.

 

[TwistedHusky]

If you just accept that we are going to be a team that is going to be good in the regular season and do nothing in the playoffs - this is an easier pill to swallow.

Not even sure if we would have a wildcard win under our belt in the playoffs in the post-Lynch era but for the fact we played the hapless Lions, who haven't won a playoff game in forever. (The Vikings game was such a weird game it probably should not count - remember that we really should have lost that game)

Since we lost Lynch we really have done nothing in the playoffs.

My frustration is that I believe we have the horses to win playoff games (not to get to the SB but I certainly believe we could at least play a division or conference game without being shellacked.)

But it would take an accomplished and able OC to do this. What we are doing is taking the Georgia Tech approach - we play a style of football that is different enough from the rest of the league it is harder to prepare a defense for it. But with the playoffs, there is more focus and the opposing teams are better - so it does not work in the playoffs.

Marty did this for years, with a number of teams. His teams would pile up good records and then go to the playoffs to get immediately knocked out. 'Marty Ball' was coined and we apparently took that ball and ran with it. Carroll won't ever do anything of note in the post-season playing this type of ball but it will make the regular season fun to watch.

I still think Wilson, under a good OC, could get this team some playoff success. I think we have the horses for it. I don't think we have the OC and I don't think Carroll is capable of the change it would require. But I don't think replacing Carroll would result in an upgrade and I am sure that replacing our OC would result in Carroll picking an equally flawed replacement. Carroll is old, his football is dated, and his preferred offense has been shown not to work against the better defenses. But he will win enough games with it that it won't spur him to change.

We will basically be one of those teams that does great regular season work but does nothing in the playoffs but should be preferable to being a 4 or 5 win team like other coaches might.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm frustrated. Carroll squandered one of the best teams of all time, and what we've been witnessing is a slow decline into mediocrity.

Can I ask what your pre-season expectations of this team was back in August? Jesus, we just went 10-6, made the playoffs in a rebuild year. Sorry, "re-tool."

Slow decline into mediocrity? I have news for you, this is the BEST it's ever going to be in our lifetime, so knock off the hyperbolic hand wringing and enjoy the ride. It's freaking HARD to win the NFL, REALLY hard.

We are one of the lucky few, look around the league. From top to bottom we're a top 2-3 organization with a fantastic ownership group, GM, coach that give us great chances to make the playoffs each and every year and hopefully continue to rebuild the next great Hawk team to get back to another SB.

Have a little perspective, and stop dwelling on one playoff game, or one negative aspect of how Pete coaches. He's sure as hell not perfect, but he's a great coach. Have faith, it's so much more fun.

 

[Fade]

Bill Belicheck is actually pretty crafty as a head coach. Unlike Pete he has the ability to adapt and improvise. He may not be an innovator per say, but he is quick to grab the innovations, and plays from other teams and implement them into his schemes. Bill Belicheck is constantly adapting, and evolving. He isn't beholden to one scheme or philosophy. He knows how to attack you from multiple different angles. One game he'll come out looking like Andy Reid is coaching, and the next it'll look like a Schottenheimer, run it up your gut special, and impose your will on others. He adapts the personnel to fit his players strengths and weaknesses. No two Patriot teams look alike in their approach.

This is Carroll's greatest weakness, especially on offense. He is rigid with his approach, and he refuses to adapt, and evolve. We're using a passing offense that looks straight out of the 70s, pre west coast offense.

Mark my words, under Pete Carroll we will never get a SuperBowl, ever again, period. He has peaked, and now he's just another guy. We'll get consistently 10 wins, maybe 9 in an off year, but it will be one and done, or like this season, a straight up loss in the first game. He is a stubborn fool who refuses to see his short comings, and would rather lose his way, than win with another approach.

I'm frustrated. Carroll squandered one of the best teams of all time, and what we've been witnessing is a slow decline into mediocrity. This is post 2005 Holmgren we're dealing with now, and it is as plain as the day to see. People talk about the 2000 Ravens, and 1985 Bears, the Seahawks were right up there with them. The biggest difference is that we didn't have Dilfer, or and oft injured McMahon as our Quarterbacks. Instead we had a Quarterback that while flawed, and unconventional was one of the most efficient QB's of all time, and has been at least a top 10 QB since his rookie year. Dilfer and McMahon? Career journeyman.

Respect you as a poster Spin, but at this point you are basically whining that we are not the Patriots or Steelers. What you are describing is the reality of the salary cap in football. Teams can longer dominate with rosters that are stacked for years on end. Each team has to retool their rosters and if you think that the roster retooling done by our team this past season with the record we ended up with isn't above the actual talent level on the field, I don't know what to tell you. That roster with say 98% of the other coaches in the league don't win more than six games.

No he is pointing out Pete Carroll was dealt pocket aces, and squandered it. He had a defense that I would take over any in the history of the game when factoring in modernity, and a HoF QB. He had both. The Patriots & Steelers both had these, and they got a cabinet full of Superbowls to show for it.

The 90's Cowboys who the L.O.B. Seahawks are most similar to got 3 Superbowls out of it with that stacked deck.


Pete still has a chance here to have his redemption. The team is pretty much re-built, an upgrade to the defense that can be handled this off-season Is all that is needed to be Superbowl contenders in '19, and in '20. But it will be all for not if Pete wants to Marty-ball it up. They will get bounced early in the playoffs again.

I was reading an article last night which I found very interesting, and it pointed out that Wilson comfortably outplayed Goff in their 2 meetings head-to-head on a per play basis. But Goff was allowed 70+ throws. Wilson was only allowed a little over 40 throws. So Goff ended up out producing him through sheer volume. Pete has put an artificial ceiling on his team that holds them back by handcuffing his QB. (They don't need to be pass happy, just more balanced.)

They just have to tweak their current formula slightly and they will be alright. If they don't. More Marty-ball seasons to follow.

 

[mrt144]

Bill Belicheck is actually pretty crafty as a head coach. Unlike Pete he has the ability to adapt and improvise. He may not be an innovator per say, but he is quick to grab the innovations, and plays from other teams and implement them into his schemes. Bill Belicheck is constantly adapting, and evolving. He isn't beholden to one scheme or philosophy. He knows how to attack you from multiple different angles. One game he'll come out looking like Andy Reid is coaching, and the next it'll look like a Schottenheimer, run it up your gut special, and impose your will on others. He adapts the personnel to fit his players strengths and weaknesses. No two Patriot teams look alike in their approach.

This is Carroll's greatest weakness, especially on offense. He is rigid with his approach, and he refuses to adapt, and evolve. We're using a passing offense that looks straight out of the 70s, pre west coast offense.

Mark my words, under Pete Carroll we will never get a SuperBowl, ever again, period. He has peaked, and now he's just another guy. We'll get consistently 10 wins, maybe 9 in an off year, but it will be one and done, or like this season, a straight up loss in the first game. He is a stubborn fool who refuses to see his short comings, and would rather lose his way, than win with another approach.

I'm frustrated. Carroll squandered one of the best teams of all time, and what we've been witnessing is a slow decline into mediocrity. This is post 2005 Holmgren we're dealing with now, and it is as plain as the day to see. People talk about the 2000 Ravens, and 1985 Bears, the Seahawks were right up there with them. The biggest difference is that we didn't have Dilfer, or and oft injured McMahon as our Quarterbacks. Instead we had a Quarterback that while flawed, and unconventional was one of the most efficient QB's of all time, and has been at least a top 10 QB since his rookie year. Dilfer and McMahon? Career journeyman.

Respect you as a poster Spin, but at this point you are basically whining that we are not the Patriots or Steelers. What you are describing is the reality of the salary cap in football. Teams can longer dominate with rosters that are stacked for years on end. Each team has to retool their rosters and if you think that the roster retooling done by our team this past season with the record we ended up with isn't above the actual talent level on the field, I don't know what to tell you. That roster with say 98% of the other coaches in the league don't win more than six games.

No he is pointing out Pete Carroll was dealt pocket aces, and squandered it. He had a defense that I would take over any in the history of the game when factoring in modernity, and a HoF QB. He had both. The Patriots & Steelers both had these, and they got a cabinet full of Superbowls to show for it.

The 90's Cowboys who the L.O.B. Seahawks are most similar to got 3 Superbowls out of it with that stacked deck.


Pete still has a chance here to have his redemption. The team is pretty much re-built, an upgrade to the defense that can be handled this off-season Is all that is needed to be Superbowl contenders in '19, and in '20. But it will be all for not if Pete wants to Marty-ball it up. They will get bounced early in the playoffs again.

I was reading an article last night which I found very interesting, and it pointed out that Wilson comfortably outplayed Goff in their 2 meetings head-to-head on a per play basis. But Goff was allowed 70+ throws. Wilson was only allowed a little over 40 throws. So Goff ended up out producing him through sheer volume. Pete has put an artificial ceiling on his team that holds them back by handcuffing his QB. (They don't need to be pass happy, just more balanced.)

They just have to tweak their current formula slightly and they will be alright. If they don't. More Marty-ball seasons to follow.

I wouldn't hold Pete's lack of dynasty against him in aggregate. I think that given only BB and TB and the Pats are the only team to span two decades worth of being in the thick of it. To reference teams from before I was born or even had pubes...I mean, the composition and ruleset of the league has likely made things like the Steelers and Cowboys run far more unlikely than it was in the 70s and 90s.

What I would hold against Pete is his dogmatic approach which is good up until it is completely inapt and also spurns the possible development of his succesor to gracefully transition to more modern football.

 

[Fade]

I wouldn't hold Pete's lack of dynasty against him in aggregate. I think that given only BB and TB and the Pats are the only team to span two decades worth of being in the thick of it. To reference teams from before I was born or even had pubes...I mean, the composition and ruleset of the league has likely made things like the Steelers and Cowboys run far more unlikely than it was in the 70s and 90s.

What I would hold against Pete is his dogmatic approach which is good up until it is completely inapt and also spurns the possible development of his succesor to gracefully transition to more modern football.

Yeah I get it.

I am just pointing out why it is logical for a fan to be frustrated, and if he refuses to learn from his recent past he will be doomed to repeat it. The L.O.B. isn't walking through that door. He is going to have to tweak the offense a little bit if he wants to win another Super Bowl.

 

[mrt144]

I wouldn't hold Pete's lack of dynasty against him in aggregate. I think that given only BB and TB and the Pats are the only team to span two decades worth of being in the thick of it. To reference teams from before I was born or even had pubes...I mean, the composition and ruleset of the league has likely made things like the Steelers and Cowboys run far more unlikely than it was in the 70s and 90s.

What I would hold against Pete is his dogmatic approach which is good up until it is completely inapt and also spurns the possible development of his succesor to gracefully transition to more modern football.

Yeah I get it.

I am just pointing out why it is logical for a fan to be frustrated, and if he refuses to learn from his recent past he will be doomed to repeat it. The L.O.B. isn't walking through that door. He is going to have to tweak the offense a little bit if he wants to win another Super Bowl.

:irishdrinkers: HARUMPH!

 

[Sgt. Largent]

No he is pointing out Pete Carroll was dealt pocket aces, and squandered it. He had a defense that I would take over any in the history of the game when factoring in modernity, and a HoF QB. He had both. The Patriots & Steelers both had these, and they got a cabinet full of Superbowls to show for it.

The 90's Cowboys who the L.O.B. Seahawks are most similar to got 3 Superbowls out of it with that stacked deck.
.

Apples and oranges.

There's a reason the Cowboy dynasty faded after the salary cap was implemented in the mid 90's, they could no longer just pay all their stars with max contracts..........and hey, lets just go sign Deion Sanders too.

Same with the Niners dynasty before them.

So the only thing Pete squandered was hanging onto our fading stars too long and not rebuilding the defense sooner with the next wave of young hungry players.

Squandered? Nope, it's just the state of the league, it's VERY hard to stay on top and win SB's. That's why since the cap was implemented only Belichick and the Patriots have figured out how to win more than a couple SB's, and they're an outlier that probably will never happen again. Because that's the way the NFL wants it, they want parity.

 

[Fade]

No he is pointing out Pete Carroll was dealt pocket aces, and squandered it. He had a defense that I would take over any in the history of the game when factoring in modernity, and a HoF QB. He had both. The Patriots & Steelers both had these, and they got a cabinet full of Superbowls to show for it.

The 90's Cowboys who the L.O.B. Seahawks are most similar to got 3 Superbowls out of it with that stacked deck.
.

Apples and oranges.

There's a reason the Cowboy dynasty faded after the salary cap was implemented in the mid 90's, they could no longer just pay all their stars with max contracts..........and hey, lets just go sign Deion Sanders too.

Same with the Niners dynasty before them.

So the only thing Pete squandered was hanging onto our fading stars too long and not rebuilding the defense sooner with the next wave of young hungry players.

Squandered? Nope, it's just the state of the league, it's VERY hard to stay on top and win SB's. That's why since the cap was implemented only Belichick and the Patriots have figured out how to win more than a couple SB's, and they're an outlier that probably will never happen again. Because that's the way the NFL wants it, they want parity.

L.O.B. Seahawks had 4 straight years of #1 DVOA finishes which had never been done. The only team to come close to that level of success is the 90's Cowboys. 3 of 4 years of #1 DVOA.

The Seahawks just don't have the hardware to show off their dominance.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Again, if you accept what Carroll is and what are reasonable expectations for this team you will be fine.

But we have done nothing in the playoffs since Lynch left but for the examples provided.

We have the ability to change that but we don't have the OC that can effect it.

So as long as you are good with great games in the regular reason and few if any postseason successes - no worries.

I disagree that this defense is more than average and I disagree that will change. But I do believe that with Wilson in a good system we would have more postseason success. I don't believe that will happen with this staff.

I would take this projected outcome over being someone like Miami or Buffalo, where you get neither regular season success or postseason anything.

But it has been close to 5 years now, depending on Carroll's intractability to change and somehow the outcomes to do as well? Unlikely.