Aseahawkfan wrote:I was doing some research on Denver. They are a real wild card right now. They have an all new coaching staff installing all new schemes. Fangio was fired. They brought in some offensive guru named Nathanial Hackett, a WCO disciple from what I read who was with Green Bay the last few years. He plans to install a higher volume passing game for Russell Wilson and likely has a much higher tolerance for turnovers than Carroll. Not sure how good the guy will do as Rodgers makes any OC look amazing, but I see why Russell agreed to go there and give a higher volume passing attack a run like his hero Drew Brees.
They also have a green defensive coordinator from the Rams' staff named Ejiro Evero. He doesn't have experience as a DC, but has worked under various quality defensive coaches.
Bottom line is the Broncos coaching staff is very green. That can lead to a really bad team in a tough division like the AFC West. So we might get a real nice pick if Hackett can't manage a team very well. And he's stepping up to a whole new level as a head coach.
The DC sounds like he is installing a new defensive scheme. Do they have the personnel to switch to a 4-3 and still be effective? Or are they built for a Fangio defensive style and will have to acquire personnel to shift to a 4-3 if that is the plan?
It sounds like the HC and OC are going to install a much higher volume passing attack. Do they have the pieces to run that? Is there O-line any good? Russell never been a WCO QB that relies on the short passing game and doesn't work real well running around like he does. Will he adapt to that type of scheme? Be interesting to see how long it takes for him to adapt to a short passing game after ten years of Pete's play action pass built on the run offense.
I think Denver has a real good chance of tanking even if Russ does well. They have more question marks than we do on both sides of the ball with that rookie coaching staff in that tough division.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I was doing some research on Denver. They are a real wild card right now. They have an all new coaching staff installing all new schemes. Fangio was fired. They brought in some offensive guru named Nathanial Hackett, a WCO disciple from what I read who was with Green Bay the last few years. He plans to install a higher volume passing game for Russell Wilson and likely has a much higher tolerance for turnovers than Carroll. Not sure how good the guy will do as Rodgers makes any OC look amazing, but I see why Russell agreed to go there and give a higher volume passing attack a run like his hero Drew Brees.
They also have a green defensive coordinator from the Rams' staff named Ejiro Evero. He doesn't have experience as a DC, but has worked under various quality defensive coaches.
Bottom line is the Broncos coaching staff is very green. That can lead to a really bad team in a tough division like the AFC West. So we might get a real nice pick if Hackett can't manage a team very well. And he's stepping up to a whole new level as a head coach.
The DC sounds like he is installing a new defensive scheme. Do they have the personnel to switch to a 4-3 and still be effective? Or are they built for a Fangio defensive style and will have to acquire personnel to shift to a 4-3 if that is the plan?
It sounds like the HC and OC are going to install a much higher volume passing attack. Do they have the pieces to run that? Is there O-line any good? Russell never been a WCO QB that relies on the short passing game and doesn't work real well running around like he does. Will he adapt to that type of scheme? Be interesting to see how long it takes for him to adapt to a short passing game after ten years of Pete's play action pass built on the run offense.
I think Denver has a real good chance of tanking even if Russ does well. They have more question marks than we do on both sides of the ball with that rookie coaching staff in that tough division.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I just started checking them out last night out of a sense of boredom just to see what that team is like. They had a pretty good defense under Fangio, but he was fired last year because of lots of losses. Fangio wasn't too good at the offensive side of the ball. Then I looked up their new head coach and he's a complete rook head coach whose only experience is leading the Jaguars after their head coach was fired. Their DC and OC are even greener.
Raiders hired Josh McDaniels after an interim coach that replaced Jon Gruden after his whole situation.
Brandon Staley on the Chargers is a second year head coach.
That whole division other than Andy Reid is green coaches. We all know how Josh McDaniels failed hard his first time out. That is going to be one weird division of rookie head coaches with talented teams seeing if they can outcoach each other and beat the old veteran Reid.
Hawktawk wrote:I’ll say this for Russ he didn’t pick a doormat division. Frankly I think Mcdanials will be fine . It’s a veteran team with a highly underrated qb whose leadership led a team with a special teams coach calling it to the playoffs and a last second pick from beating the AFC champs . I think Carr is genuine and a true leader of men and with chandler Jones and Devante Adams they are ready . It will be Intersting the first time they see Denver and the guy whose agent leaked Carrs job as one Russ would take . Chargers gotta get to the postseason. The coach will be on the hot seat if they don’t . They barely missed . Now Kalil Mack is across from Bosa .
Reid is proof you don’t give up on a great head coach who is older and has a couple down seasons . We will see with no Tyreek hill and the weird finish to Mahomes playoff loss .
I’ve seen Denver picked first to 4th. Russ ranked 5 th to 8th league wide . I’ve seen an article suggesting he will lead a team that hadn’t made the playoffs in 6 years to a title . If he does I’ll choke on crow cause my views are known . It will be a fascinating division for sure z
Hawktawk wrote:I’ll say this for Russ he didn’t pick a doormat division. Frankly I think Mcdanials will be fine . It’s a veteran team with a highly underrated qb whose leadership led a team with a special teams coach calling it to the playoffs and a last second pick from beating the AFC champs . I think Carr is genuine and a true leader of men and with chandler Jones and Devante Adams they are ready . It will be Intersting the first time they see Denver and the guy whose agent leaked Carrs job as one Russ would take . Chargers gotta get to the postseason. The coach will be on the hot seat if they don’t . They barely missed . Now Kalil Mack is across from Bosa .
Reid is proof you don’t give up on a great head coach who is older and has a couple down seasons . We will see with no Tyreek hill and the weird finish to Mahomes playoff loss .
I’ve seen Denver picked first to 4th. Russ ranked 5 th to 8th league wide . I’ve seen an article suggesting he will lead a team that hadn’t made the playoffs in 6 years to a title . If he does I’ll choke on crow cause my views are known . It will be a fascinating division for sure z
Aseahawkfan wrote:Andy Reid has one Super Bowl ring and three appearances. Same as Holmgren and same as Pete.
Aseahawkfan wrote:He lost again to Tom Brady getting severely outcoached even with a stud like Mahomes. He may never go back to the Super Bowl again. I would not want Andy Reid here as head coach. Reid gets outcoached a lot. Only reason he likely got over the hump this time is Mahomes is that damn good. Reid would be still losing if not for Mahomes.
Not sure why you think Mcdaniels will be fine. He certainly wasn't fine in Denver. I haven't seen many coaches from the Bill B tree do too well. I think it is because Bill B controls too much of the show and doesn't develop coaches, he develops lackeys who do exactly what he says. When he's not there to coordinate everything, well, they don't do great.
That whole division is a bunch of question marks with a lot of talent. Only at least reasonably sure team is KC because of Patrick Mahomes, not Andy Reid. Same as Seattle used to be a near sure thing because of Russell Wilson, not Pete Carroll. We were to a 6 to 7 win team before Russell Wilson arrived with an elite defense. Now we're headed back to that until we find the next franchise QB.
Head coaches are only as good as their QB barring occasional fluke years. That's why Bill B looks pedestrian with Brady gone and Arians now has a Super Bowl ring. Andy Reid was some washed up coach before Patrick Mahomes. Pete Carroll was an NFL failure that people starting to lose hope in before Russell Wilson arrived.
Fans know. Owners know it. Head coaches know it. You're only as good as your QB allows you to be.
There is no doubt that the AFC West is a tough division, but it's not any better or worse than our division. We've seen what a very good quarterback can do for a number of teams, and although he's going to have to make some changes in his game from what he had been doing the past few years here, I'd rate the Broncos chances ahead of the Raiders. It will be an interesting division.
RiverDog wrote:I'll let you correct that one yourself.
obiken wrote:On the Chiefs, they lost Hill, a good move long term and they got a boat load for him. They lost Honey Badger, who was a real leader type and a play maker on defense. The scary thing is according to a lot of sources, their LT and them are miles apart on their contract. So theirs no way they can be as good as last year, its mathematical. I see the Donkeys and the Raiders battling it out, with the Chargers in a CLOSE 3rd or 4th.
Aseahawkfan wrote: You know what's weird my buddy pointed out to me. The Chargers coach is a defensive specialist but the Chargers defense sucked last year. And their offense was amazing because that Herbert kid had an amazing year. If they can keep up the offensive production and improve the defense, Chargers a real contender.
RiverDog wrote:I'll let you correct that one yourself.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Nothing to fix. They all have one ring to show for their efforts with a team led by an elite QB.
Appearances may be off for each, but who cares. You don't like losses anyway.
RiverDog wrote:I care. You said that Pete has 3 SB appearances. He has just 2.
I never like losses, but SB appearances are part of a HC's resume. They count.
I think Pete has a higher win percentage than Holmgren, maybe than Reid. He developed a better QB. He definitely built a better defense than Reid or Holmgren ever built, it's not even close.
I'll take Pete's peak team for that five years over any Holmgren or Reid team. They were magnificent. Their obliteration of that legendary Denver offense was better than any Super Bowl Holmgren or Reid won. It was a glorious obliteration.
RiverDog wrote:I care. You said that Pete has 3 SB appearances. He has just 2.
I never like losses, but SB appearances are part of a HC's resume. They count.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I don't think they count much. You lost.
I think Pete has a higher win percentage than Holmgren, maybe than Reid. He developed a better QB. He definitely built a better defense than Reid or Holmgren ever built, it's not even close.
I'll take Pete's peak team for that five years over any Holmgren or Reid team. They were magnificent. Their obliteration of that legendary Denver offense was better than any Super Bowl Holmgren or Reid won. It was a glorious obliteration.
RiverDog wrote:#5 Andy Reid, 223-135, .633
#16 Mike Holmgren 161-111, .592.
#21 Pete Carroll 152-104, .593.
All Time Career playoff wins:
#3 Andy Reid 19-16, .543, 3 SB, 1 Champ.
#7 Mike Holmgren 13-11, .542, 3 SB's, 1 Champ,
#10 (tied with 4 others) Pete Carroll, 11-10, .524, 2 SB, 1 Champ.
You can manipulate their performances to fit your personal narrative, better 5 peak years, better defense, yadi-yadi-yada. But it's clear that both Reid and Holmgren have better numbers than Pete. Plus Pete is an active coach, so his numbers could change not only for the better, but also for the worse if things go south for the next couple of years as both of us have agreed is more likely than not.
RiverDog wrote:All Time Career coaching wins:
#5 Andy Reid, 223-135, .633
#16 Mike Holmgren 161-111, .592.
#21 Pete Carroll 152-104, .593.
All Time Career playoff wins:
#3 Andy Reid 19-16, .543, 3 SB, 1 Champ.
#7 Mike Holmgren 13-11, .542, 3 SB's, 1 Champ,
#10 (tied with 4 others) Pete Carroll, 11-10, .524, 2 SB, 1 Champ.
You can spin their careers to fit your personal narrative, better 5 peak years, better defense, yadi-yadi-yada. But it's clear that both Reid and Holmgren have better numbers than Pete. Plus Pete is an active coach, so his numbers could change not only for the better, but also for the worse if things go south for the next couple of years as both of us have agreed is more likely than not.
obiken wrote:Right, but Reid's are probably going to get better. Lombardi only had 100 wins but how many championships before there was a SB, and he had very few bad seasons. Pete, IMHO is done, I hope I a wrong but if he wins 7 games this year we will be lucky.
NorthHawk wrote:[quoteReid isn't exactly known for coming back from being down, man, Andy Reid has been outcoached in every Super Bowl he's been in but one. Even with an incredible QB like Patrick Mahomes, he gets outcoached by Arians.
With that game against the Bucs in the SB, their OL was playing with 4 of 5 2nd stringers.
It's pretty difficult to play your game when you're overmatched along the LoS. Mahomes was running for his life most passing plays and they had trouble running the ball.
It's a large part of why they decided to restock up front the next year.
Andy Reid had the eagles in the conference championship 4 times I believe along with a super bowl . As opposed to outcoached I’d say he was let down by Mcnabb who was so fat and out of shape he was puking in the huddle on what should have been a game winning drive . His win over the 9ers was fueled by a late second half comeback like every playoff game that year . Reid is a great coach . So Was Holmgren . So is Pete and I agree with Asea a historic defense like that elevates a coaches resume darn near as much as a Lombardi . In hindsight it’s fair to ask what might have happened had Brady or Manning had that defense ? . Basically Manning did in his last Super Bowl when his arm was shot .
As for Arians his defense won as much as Brady did . Defense wins championships . Brady is great . He’s also lucky . You have to be .
obiken wrote:No it doesnt, Offense wins Championships now, period. Did you bother to watch the AFC Playoffs? There is no defense that can stop Hill, Mahomy, or Kelsy, or stop Allen and Diggs. Its an Offensive league! This is why the ONLY defensive coach to get to the playoffs was Vrable, and they were out early. Guys like Carroll, Billichek, and Zimmer are DINOSAURS. Brady really, come on, he finally had real WR's and weapons. With all the rule changes Offenses rule, Defenses drool. All you have to have like the Bengals is a killer qb and a middle of the pack defense.
Then why did the Super Bowl winner with the better defense win? Aaron Donald was a key in the win. Why was the final score 23-20? Looks more like a defensive Super Bowl to me.
Vrabel don't have a QB and his star RB was coming back from a severe injury.
You love offense, but don't mean a great defense won't still win. I hear this crap every time they make changes, then some new great defense comes along and proves it wrong. Balanced teams win the most. You can't be weak in the NFL.
obiken wrote:Oh really, your forgetting they have Cooper, OBJ, a RB by committee a killer OLine, and a QB that was vastly underrated coming out of Detroit. IT should not have been close, when OBJ went out the dynamics of the game changed, and it became close, they went out and got another one just in case. Moreover, Donald really, I am 66, been watching FB since I was 13, Aaron Donald is the best DLineman of all time, period, and yeah he fought of double and triple teams at the end of the game to stop them. The Rams have just too many weapons for defenses to stop if they are all healthy. OBTW, I love defense and Running games way more, its just not going to get it done anymore.
Aseahawkfan wrote: Yeah, really. With all those weapons the Rams put up 23 points and Cinci 20. I guarantee you 10000000% if the Rams of last year went against the Legion of Boom, they don't even put up 23.
If you think Aaron Donald is the best lineman ever, you forget Tez and Reggie White. I've watched Donald too. I think he's among the best, but Reggie White, Tez, and quite a few others could match him. People just forget because they always get recency bias with the current flavor of the week.
You're flat out wrong, period. Games shift. Defense is still very required. A great defense can shut down a great offense and has many, many, many times and will many times again.
You're overblowing things again. If you've watched football since you were 13, then you'd know it. I've done the same. I know for a fact that tons of different teams have won with different styles across all eras. It's just the way of the game. You even watched an offense that put up 55 TDs with Peyton Manning leading them and a bunch of weapons get absolutely obliterated by a Seattle defense missing Brandon Browner, one of their key pieces. That was only 8 Super Bowls ago.
You still need to be able to play defense. If you have an amazing defense with a middle of the pack offense, you'll still be able to win a Super bowl. No one has won more in the modern era than Belichick. You're suddenly calling the guy with six rings a dinosaur? Crazy. Football hasn't changed that much in the last five years when Bill B won.
None of those coaches you named are close to Bill B. Reid and Holmgren got as many rings as Pete as offensive coaches. Same as Sean Payton. Tom Coughlin is the only other one with two. So no use pretending there has been some major change that caused some shift in the NFL. Main reason for winning will always come down to talent versus talent regardless of scheme or whether the focus is offense or defense. That's how it works. That's how it will always work.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Then why did the Super Bowl winner with the better defense win? Aaron Donald was a key in the win. Why was the final score 23-20? Looks more like a defensive Super Bowl to me.
Vrabel don't have a QB and his star RB was coming back from a severe injury.
You love offense, but don't mean a great defense won't still win. I hear this crap every time they make changes, then some new great defense comes along and proves it wrong. Balanced teams win the most. You can't be weak in the NFL.
Aseahawkfan wrote:No it doesnt, Offense wins Championships now, period. Did you bother to watch the AFC Playoffs? There is no defense that can stop Hill, Mahomy, or Kelsy, or stop Allen and Diggs. Its an Offensive league! This is why the ONLY defensive coach to get to the playoffs was Vrable, and they were out early. Guys like Carroll, Billichek, and Zimmer are DINOSAURS. Brady really, come on, he finally had real WR's and weapons. With all the rule changes Offenses rule, Defenses drool. All you have to have like the Bengals is a killer qb and a middle of the pack defense.
Then why did the Super Bowl winner with the better defense win? Aaron Donald was a key in the win. Why was the final score 23-20? Looks more like a defensive Super Bowl to me.
Vrabel don't have a QB and his star RB was coming back from a severe injury.
You love offense, but don't mean a great defense won't still win. I hear this crap every time they make changes, then some new great defense comes along and proves it wrong. Balanced teams win the most. You can't be weak in the NFL.
RiverDog wrote:The average points per game per team in the NFL in 2021 was 18.3, so you can hardly argue that the Super Bowl was a defensive struggle when both teams scored more than the league average. It was a well balanced, with neither the offense or the defense dominating the game. FYI in the regular season, the Rams ranked 8th in scoring, the Bengals 7th.
The Rams defense was just so-so in 2021. They were ranked 15th in scoring defense, 17th in total yards surrendered. The Bengals' defensive performance was almost identical, middle of the road. Heck, our Seahawk defense surrendered fewer points per game than either the Rams or the Bengals.
The facts do not support your theory. If anything, they contradict it.
What are you talking about? This isn't a theory.
You all need to stop pretending he league has changed so much defense doesn't matter. It's ridiculous.
The league is wide open right now. Patriots dominance is over. We can win with a strong defense, strong offense, or any mix in between. I get real tired of hearing total BS like "Defense is over. We need to go all in on offense" because someone likes offense better than defense. It's horsecrap.
RiverDog wrote:The average points per game per team in the NFL in 2021 was 18.3, so you can hardly argue that the Super Bowl was a defensive struggle when both teams scored more than the league average. It was a well balanced, with neither the offense or the defense dominating the game. FYI in the regular season, the Rams ranked 8th in scoring, the Bengals 7th.
The Rams defense was just so-so in 2021. They were ranked 15th in scoring defense, 17th in total yards surrendered. The Bengals' defensive performance was almost identical, middle of the road. Heck, our Seahawk defense surrendered fewer points per game than either the Rams or the Bengals.
The facts do not support your theory. If anything, they contradict it.
RiverDog wrote:The average points per game per team in the NFL in 2021 was 18.3, so you can hardly argue that the Super Bowl was a defensive struggle when both teams scored more than the league average. It was a well balanced, with neither the offense or the defense dominating the game. FYI in the regular season, the Rams ranked 8th in scoring, the Bengals 7th.
The Rams defense was just so-so in 2021. They were ranked 15th in scoring defense, 17th in total yards surrendered. The Bengals' defensive performance was almost identical, middle of the road. Heck, our Seahawk defense surrendered fewer points per game than either the Rams or the Bengals.
The facts do not support your theory. If anything, they contradict it.
Aseahawkfan wrote:I am off work. I don't get to relax like Mr. Retired Guy. I still gotta eat that work cheese.
First, you know league average points per game don't work like that. It was a defensive struggle. Rams were losing with that vaunted offense 16 to 20 going into the 4th quarter. The Rams scored a TD with 4:48 to play. Then Aaron Donald and the Rams defense did their job for that final drive.
The Rams scored 27.1 points per game during the regular season. The Bengals also scored 27.1 points per game during the regular season. So both teams were held below their normal game totals. You go by team average points per game, not league. The game came down to the final five minutes in the fourth quarter. The Rams defense held the Bengals to 20 points in the biggest game per year, 7 points below their average per game. So both teams defenses held the opposing offense to below their season game totals. Thus a defensive struggle. At the end of the game, the Rams defense came up with the stop to win while the Bengals offense got another shot to take the lead or tie and were stopped by the Rams defense.
I wasn't really theorizing. My main point is Ive seen amazing offenses like the Greatest Show on Turf who were the number one offense putting up incredible numbers won a Super Bowl and lose a Super Bowl. Baltimore Ravens won with a fairly crap offense as did the Tampa Bay Bucs. Eagles won with a QB who isn't even starting now in Nick Foles and a strong defense.
There' a lot of ways to win a Super Bowl with a lot different team configurations. Main thing you gotta do is get a lot of talent and get hot and stay healthy at the same time. Formula has changed some, but not enough to change that defense can still win championships.
NorthHawk wrote:The consistently best teams have a balance of both Offense and Defense.
The Pats won all of those SBs because when the Offense wasn't as good, the Defense was and vice versa.
By focusing on one side of the ball it limits the teams ability to make up for one side or the others shortcomings.
And that might be our problem without a top QB going forward - namely we won't be able to step up on Offense when needed, and that's not even discussing the conservative nature of Pete's Offense.
RiverDog wrote:The fact that both offenses scored under their season averages is irrelevant. What is relevant is how it compared to the typical NFL game that season. Defensive struggles end with a combined score of under 30 offensive points. The 49'ers' 13-10 wild card win over the Packers is a game in which one could describe as a defensive struggle.
Having said that, the Super Bowl was not an offensive pinball machine, either. It was a well balanced, well played game very typical of the vast majority of NFL games that season. There were just two turnovers, both by the Rams. The Rams committed just 2 penalties, the Bengals 4. There were no defensive or special teams scoring. As well as Aaron Donald played, he was not the MVP. They gave it, as they usually do, to the offensive player, meaning that the perception was that it wasn't a defensive game.
You're right, it wasn't the Greatest Show on Turf that won the day. If you want to argue that you can win a Lombardi in a number of different ways, I'll agree with you. But you were making the Rams defense sound like the Legion of Boom. They were not. The 2021 Rams were a very well balanced team with neither unit overshadowing the other.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests