49ers' Super Bowl run shows that Carroll method works

Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.

 
I would think that a Seahawk appearance in this Super Bowl would show the Carroll method works but that's just me I guess
 
Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
 
The LOB Seahawks have their unique place in history. But there’s no reason why the current Seahawks can’t get back to elite status with some tweaks to personnel (particularly on defense) and better health. The fact that Seattle has remained competitive in the the post-Legion of Boom era shows what the team is capable of. Since their last Super Bowl run in the 2014 season, the Seahawks have made the playoffs in four of five years. Just one of those four postseason trips ended in the Wild Card.[/i]

There's plenty of reason they can't get back to elite status. You aren't just "some tweaks to personnel" away from a bottom third defense to elite status.

And yes they Hawks have made the playoffs four of five years. That's what happens when you have an elite QB.

They have failed to make it past the divisional round in each of those years. That's what happens when you have a coach who thinks he still has an elite defense.
 
The LOB Seahawks have their unique place in history. But there’s no reason why the current Seahawks can’t get back to elite status with some tweaks to personnel (particularly on defense) and better health. The fact that Seattle has remained competitive in the the post-Legion of Boom era shows what the team is capable of. Since their last Super Bowl run in the 2014 season, the Seahawks have made the playoffs in four of five years. Just one of those four postseason trips ended in the Wild Card.[/i]

There's plenty of reason they can't get back to elite status. You aren't just "some tweaks to personnel" away from a bottom third defense to elite status.

And yes they Hawks have made the playoffs four of five years. That's what happens when you have an elite QB.

They have failed to make it past the divisional round in each of those years. That's what happens when you have a coach who thinks he still has an elite defense.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Wilson will always keep them competitive because he's elite. Carroll will keep them from rising above competitive because he refuses to completely embrace Wilson's talent.
 
Yep. Rodgers makes the playoffs almost every year and its been a decade since they won it

It annoys me when Hawk honks say Seattle is second only to the Pats as a dynasty. The distance between 1 and 2 is vast

I do give Allen a lot of credit. Since he bought the team they have fought their way to relevance. The Holmgren plan to lose the 2005 Super Bowl. The Carroll plan to go 1-1 in the Super Bowl. For this franchise it is historic. For the league it is middling. A 1-2 record in the Super Bowl 54 years in

2nd tier I would say behind the big boys like the Pats, Steelers Niners et al
 
Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
Click to expand...

Overall just a couple plays from being in the Super Bowl. Ball bounces a little different here and there, maybe a couple more touchdowns here instead of a few sacks. As close as you can get without being super bowl champs three years in a row.
 
Yep. Rodgers makes the playoffs almost every year and its been a decade since they won it

It annoys me when Hawk honks say Seattle is second only to the Pats as a dynasty. The distance between 1 and 2 is vast

I do give Allen a lot of credit. Since he bought the team they have fought their way to relevance. The Holmgren plan to lose the 2005 Super Bowl. The Carroll plan to go 1-1 in the Super Bowl. For this franchise it is historic. For the league it is middling. A 1-2 record in the Super Bowl 54 years in

2nd tier I would say behind the big boys like the Pats, Steelers Niners et al
Click to expand...

Seattle is second to the Pats in the PC era in the same way that UW is second to UW in the Pac (insert number here) era.

In both cases there is first place and there is everyone else.
 
Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
Click to expand...

Overall just a couple plays from being in the Super Bowl. Ball bounces a little different here and there, maybe a couple more touchdowns here instead of a few sacks. As close as you can get without being super bowl champs three years in a row.[/b]
Click to expand...

Are you saying the last 3 years or the 3 years starting with them winning it? Because I think the OP is talking about this year and this team has come nowhere close to the super bowl 3 straight years.
 
Competing SFs running approach to what Carrol is doing is insanely laughable.

Also, they weren’t inches away from a first round bye. They were a full game against Arizona away from it.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah that's a pretty inexcusable take from Arthur. Seattle still doesn't have a bye if they beat SF. They also don't have a bye if they beat Arizona.

They were an Arizona (or LA) win AND a few inches against SF away from a first round bye.

Or more accurately, two wins away. Which is a pretty big number in a 16 game league.
Click to expand...

Overall just a couple plays from being in the Super Bowl. Ball bounces a little different here and there, maybe a couple more touchdowns here instead of a few sacks. As close as you can get without being super bowl champs three years in a row.[/b]
Click to expand...

Are you saying the last 3 years or the 3 years starting with them winning it? Because I think the OP is talking about this year and this team has come nowhere close to the super bowl 3 straight years.
Click to expand...
I was lampooning
 
None of the Hawks except minimum salary rookies give a fuck about Ivan Lewis. I promise you Bobby Wagner and Clowney wouldn’t listen to a word he said.
 
The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.
 
The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.
Click to expand...

Even in the LOB days, they got shredded anytime a starter at DB was out.

I don’t mind running the ball, but ideally we would run more later in the game after building a lead, not running and keeping it close by doing so and throwing late. The always compete, win in the 4th shit backfires at times.
 
Last edited:
The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.
Click to expand...

Even in the LOB days, they got shredded anytime a starter at DB was out.
[/b]
I don’t mind running the ball, but ideally we would run more later in the game after building a lead, not running and keeping it close by doing so and throwing late. The always compete, win in the 4th shit backfires at times.
Click to expand...

If you mean Sherman, Earl or Kam, yes.

If you mean the rotating corner opposite of Sherm, not really.
 
The Carroll method is great if you have a defense that can back it up. I also wouldn't call this the Carroll method, as it was done before by the 85' bears and the early 2000s Ravens.
Click to expand...

Even in the LOB days, they got shredded anytime a starter at DB was out.
[/b]
I don’t mind running the ball, but ideally we would run more later in the game after building a lead, not running and keeping it close by doing so and throwing late. The always compete, win in the 4th shit backfires at times.
Click to expand...

If you mean Sherman, Earl or Kam, yes.

If you mean the rotating corner opposite of Sherm, not really.
Click to expand...

Lane in the Super Bowl was a huge loss and cost us the game. We wouldn’t have needed a game winning TD if he didn’t get hurt.

Maxwell moved inside where he was worse and I’ll suited to guard Edelman and Simon got destroyed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top